Your planning application is invalid...

The title of this post ‘your planning application is invalid’ is unfortunately a phrase that planning consultants, architects and other agents see all too often. In some instances, a crucial plan or supporting document has been mistakenly omitted from the application submission; in other cases a scale bar is missing from a submitted drawing or the drawing has an incorrect scale. Whilst annoying, these small issues do arise and I think we generally accept that they need to be addressed.

However, year on year, and I haven’t reviewed in detail, it does appear to me that there is an increasing likelihood of a planning application being made invalid for what I can only describe as spurious reasons. Invalid letters appear for all sorts of weird and wonderful reasons.

I had one today. It related to an application made on a property next door to a property which currently has a live planning application submitted against it (one that we had also submitted). Both applications used an almost identical location plan which - for the uninitiated - is required to clearly demonstrate the extent of the application site and any other land owned by the applicant. There was apparently nothing wrong with the location plan for the first application because it was made valid. However, for the second application, there was a problem. There was only one road name on the plan. Not that it wasn’t absolutely crystal clear where the property was or what the extent of the site was - but the computer says there should be two road names (the PPG doesn’t, but hey) so it must be invalid.

In the end, I had a discussion with a friendly validation officer and the application was made valid given that, ultimately, there was nothing wrong with the location plan. However, being a cynic, and I don’t think it’s a stretch - but it had taken the LPA so long to get around to validating the application that we are already around 6 weeks into what should be an 8-week application. I wonder…were the LPA looking for a reason to make it invalid in order to reset the statutory period? Stranger things have happened.

But, and there is a serious point to all of this, it has appeared to me over the last couple of years that LPA’s are seriously ramping up local validation requirements to a degree that feels a little bit unreasonable. I accept that in some cases this is to combat poorly made applications - but increasing validation requirements is unlikely to result in better submissions from those poorly equipped to make them - but is actually only likely to increase invalid applications because agents and architects who otherwise know what they doing, are increasingly caught out by the latest checklist, pro-forma or bizarre local requirement that applies in no other authority.

There is moreover the vast slew of information that is generally now required to support an application. Some of this is justified and I think agents can appreciate that decision makers often have their hands tied by various legal and policy frameworks, particularly surrounding ecology. It is what it is and in lots of cases, I understand. But, it is increasingly the case that LPA’s ask for information that could either be dealt with at condition stage, or isn’t even a relevant consideration. This all results in a higher number of invalid applications and clogs up the planning system.

It was pleasing to see therefore that, as part of the updated Framework due in the Spring, the Government are consulting on ‘a more consistent and proportionate approach to local information requirements’. In other words, they seem to appreciate that information requirements have got out of control and sadly that they need to intervene to resolve this issue. For the sanity of agents and architects all over the country, it is absolutely crucial that information requirements are resolved, and frankly pointless validation requirements (including the bane of my life - the checklist) are banished forever. Whether this is ultimately the result, I doubt. But, if, at the very least, it increases consistency across LPA’s, it would be worthwhile so we can at least know that the unreasonable requirements apply equally everywhere!

Perhaps once they have sorted out inconsistent validation, they can have a go at CIL…