There isn’t a debate about planning that happens without at least some reference to the increasing complexity of compiling and submitting a planning application. But rarely do we break down what is needed and why.
What you need to submit with an application is the product of three sources: the law (mainly the DMPO), government policy and advice (the NPPF and PPG) and finally the LPA (through its Local List of validation requirements and any pre-application advice it might give in the context of a specific proposal). Is it any wonder that with such disparate progenitors that the resulting progeny can be so problematic?
History of the problem
Prior to 2005 there was little advice on the matter of validating planning applications. At the time there was legal ambiguity about what constituted a valid planning application. This was a source of problems.
The then ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) produced Best Practice Guidance on it in March of that year, as part of a wider body of work to change what was Development Control into Development Management. It was based on work by Arup and its main innovation were Validation Checklists. These were SPDs that set out both the statutory, government and local requirements for planning applications – they became Local Lists a year or so later. This work was the start of trying to fix the validation problem and it continues to this day, 21 years later.
Back then, the statutory requirements were limited: a form, the right ownership certificate, the correct fee, a site plan and “any other plans, drawings and information necessary to describe the development which is the subject of the application”. The only real source of angst was what constituted an acceptable set of plans, but that aspect of validation is beyond the scope of this piece.
The statutory requirements have grown over the years, with the highlights being Design & Access Statements (2006), Fire Statements (2021) and mandatory BNG (2024). The government advice requirements have similarly grown over time, but the latest version (the new draft NPPF – our MHCLG Christmas present) seeks to reduce requirements but by vague phrases like, “supported by the minimum necessary information requirements”. Most remain to be convinced that it will succeed.
We are now at a point where the volume of material submitted with planning applications has grown like Topsy over the last two decades. Notwithstanding that it’s all now electronic, it is said that you used to need a suitcase to deliver a planning application, whereas now you need a small van!
What can we do about it?
Causes of the problem
The solution to this problem lies in understanding the dynamics and motivations of the main players in the game:
- The consultants who produce the supporting documents/studies
- The administrative staff who are the validation gatekeepers
As anyone who deals with larger planning applications will attest, 90 to 95% of most consultant’s supporting statements on whatever subject is likely to be generic waffle. They sometimes even forget to update the name of the LPA or the site address from the previous one that they produced!
Whilst experienced practitioners know where to find the half dozen or so pages, in a 100-200-page document, that relate to the scheme, the public struggle. It’s often overwhelming.
The validation staff in a DM service are not planning professionals. Neither do they have any knowledge of the scheme that is the subject of the planning application. They will generally work from a checklist that states, “if it is this, then we need that”. It can result in requests that seem bureaucratic and unnecessary.
Solving the problem
The Planning Officers Society has been lobbying government for several years to sort this out. We recommend limiting what can be submitted with a planning application: apart from the form, certificate, fee and plans, only two other documents should be necessary:
- a Design Justification: why the scheme represents good design – effectively a DAS; and
- an Impact Assessment: what externalities would result from the scheme and whether they are either acceptable or otherwise mitigated – this would be the ES for EIA development.
All the various reports and studies that are currently produced and submitted with planning applications can be put into one of these two categories, with each issue representing a chapter in their respective document. This approach would eliminate the myriad descriptions of the development, the site, the planning history, the development plan etc that appear in current documents.
For small developments these could just be two paragraphs in a supporting letter; it should be designed to be scalable and proportionate. LPA’s Local Lists would need to be reviewed following these changes and culled so that the aims of necessity and proportionality are delivered.
Many of the subjects covered in supporting studies are questionable in their relevance to planning. POS and the Planning Alliance have been lobbying government to simplify the DM process and recently produced Getting Spades in the Ground, setting out how the sector should stick-to-the-knitting and stop duplicating other consent regimes. This has been picked up by MHCLG in its draft NPPF NDMP DM7, but they need to go much further. The results of reversing this mission creep will significantly reduce the matters that need to be covered in supporting documentation.
Advice should be produced encouraging brevity and succinctness. Matters like methodology explanations should be consigned to appendices. Where it is necessary to include it in the document it preferably should just include a reference, via a weblink, to the relevant standard which contains the more detailed explanation.
Advice should also make the (somewhat obvious) point that the Design Justification and Impact Assessment must be based on the iteration of the scheme that has been submitted and not an earlier version; it is surprising how often this is not the case! This should be certified at the beginning of each document by the main agent.
If either document is over 1,500 words a technical summary of 1,500 words or less should be provided. This not only helps the case officer and the public but should also help the applicant. By being required to produce more focused and integrated documents, the overall design of a scheme should improve. Consideration should also be given to legislating that where there is a discrepancy between the summary and the main document, it should be interpreted in favour of the summary wherever possible to ensure the quality of that element.
Finally, the validation by the Council of submitted applications needs to just be a check that the correct documents have been included (easy with just two required) with no need to open those documents and examine their contents. That should be part of the determination process. Such a judgement (ie “is it well designed?” and “are its impacts acceptable?”) can only be made by planning professionals and not by validation administrative staff. It should be clear that if those design and impact justifications are not made in the submitted documents, it would be grounds to refuse the application.
It is hoped that these changes will make the validation offspring less problematic!
Mike Kiely is a chartered town planner with over 40 years’ experience in local government, most of that in London with 14 years at service head level and above. He is a formerly president of the Planning Officers Society and now chair of its Board.
