Reflections on the loss of the 'free go' at planning
by Nicola Taylor
On December 6, 2023, a significant change in the planning fee scale was implemented with the primary intention of increasing investment in planning services. Fees increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for other types of applications and crucially, planning applications that have been refused or withdrawn no longer benefit from a ‘free go’. Given the need for a reliable and efficient planning service, with time for a collaborative and thoughtful process, and the fact that planners are often overwhelmed with cases we support changes which increase investment in planning services. However with the change to remove the ‘free go’ from planning services this has brought up different challenges for ourselves and our clients.
The best planning outcomes are usually achieved through a discursive process to reach a solution that works for works for both the applicant and the local planning context. However, alongside the formal changes there seems to be an increasing tendency for council’s to withdraw from discussions during applications, with some even bringing in closed book applications during which they will not communicate with the applicant or agent on even minor issues.
We work on a lot of small to medium developments, both new build and conversion of up to about 20 units. These are usually not large enough to trigger a planning performance agreement (PPA) but are large enough that they represent a significant investment for the applicant to get to the stage of a full application. Applicants and agents therefore want to feel confident in a scheme’s chances of success before submitting an application and a reliable and collaborative planning process is key, particularly given that if an application is refused on an issue that could have been resolved, there is no ‘free go’ so the costs to re-apply are significant.
We are more often more strongly recommending going for pre-application advice to our clients, and have found that doing so can mean the planners are more willing to engage in a subsequent full application. However, this approach comes with its own set of challenges. There is no fixed timescale for a response to pre-applications, and planners are not obligated to abide by their feedback when the full application is submitted so the process lacks certainty despite the often very high fees. When the advice is returned can also be missing key pieces of information, such as which reports might be required for validation or what S106 contributions are likely to be sought.
Prior to the changes to the loss of the free go some of our developer clients refused used to use pre application services, preferring to submit an early full application. They did this knowing that it was a risk, but that the planners had to respond within the determination period and that, if they could accept getting a refusal, they would have a full and comprehensive list of issues which would then become a material consideration in future applications.
In some respects it feels like the process is getting more expensive whilst offering less in the way of feedback. It is necessary to be tenacious in following up on pre application advice and making sure that we get as much information as possible from the process to maximise the benefit in developing schemes for success at full planning stage. At planning stage, in cases where we feel that there is a good, and justifiable, case for a policy not applying or being met in a different way, we are now more likely to offer conservative advice to clients, mindful that without the ‘free go’ they may choose to take fewer (or more calculated) risks within a full application than they may have done before the changes arose.
Whilst there may be no ‘free go’ the appeal process is still an option for schemes with refusals. However, this is fraught with its own challenges. There is no fixed timescale for appeals, leading to prolonged uncertainty and requiring applicants, agents and planners to devote additional time and resources to these cases. This is not an efficient approach, and it is preferable to collaborate and negotiate during the planning stage to avoid these complications.
The intention behind the changes is to bolster investment in planning services, but the removal of the free go at planning and the increased reliance on pre-application processes has introduced new challenges. One of the particular challenges is the different ways in which councils work and the different standards of services they provide. In a system without the ‘free go’ the variation in the quality and veracity of pre application services and the planning services themselves has increased uncertainty for applicants and agents. It would be good to see more consistency and quality in the process so that those working with the system can act with confidence.
