Planning and Heritage Statement

[Deejay]

i would appreciate any thoughts on the following.

We have submitted our pre planning application and now feel confident enough (after access issue) to start the formal process.  The Architectural Technician, who we have previously engaged, has retired and his son has taken over.  When I phoned the son he explained he is inundated with work and is booked up until the end of August.  I liked working with his dad as he was non intrusive somehow and is well liked by the local Planning people.   I did not understand the Planning process at the time (2011) and had a lot of hurdles to overcome, most (if not all) of which I managed myself.   I did the Design and Access Statement (plagiarised someone else's - which I am very good at!) and to our utmost surprise we got planning approval for 2 dwellings in a conservation area with a questionable entrance.  For our current application, I have already done the Planning and Heritage Statement myself (fortunately a property nearby required a Heritage Statement so again, I have plundered that to suit) and also the D&A Statement (I had the info from our previous application).  If I wait and go with the son, I think he will be Ok submitting my efforts re these 2 documents (which are pretty OK I think). Do Planning prefer an expert's name on these statements.   If I choose another local Arch Tech who does a lot of work in our village, I am pretty sure he will want to obtain any surveys etc from outside sources which can start running up costs (I am just referring to D&A, and Heritage).  The Heritage aspect is a Grade 2 Listed Church which stands approx 42 m from our property and is surrounded by deciduous trees.  The conservation area is not particularly attractive with hotch potch developments and not a lot of consideration given to conservation in the past.  

Would it be false economy to choose someone with less experience but who I already know and like, against an experienced Architectural Tech who knows the area well and has many successes (but put me off in 2011 because of his cashmere coat and Mercedes - I'm easily intimidated!) who will, I am sure, be considerably more expensive but may bring some new perspectives to consider.   I did have a lot of input with the applications in 2011 but I do have the time (and the Internet).   I just don't want to make a mistake.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

[saveasteading]

I have worked with planners on many projects over many years,  in many local authorities, and have come to (mostly) respect what they do.

Most work hard and are happy to engage. Unfortunately a few prevaricate and look for excuses.

 

Although I am qualified and experienced, it is as a Civil Engineer, not Planning Agent or Architect.

In my opinion a Planner will not mind in the slightest that you are not qualified.

They want relevant information that will help their deliberation. They want the truth, and not waffle.

 

They will, however, expect it to be well written, easy to follow and most of all, again, relevant.

 

As you have found, there are proven formats and it is sensible to copy their structure.

They are all published on the planning portals, so it might be fun to look at lots, the horribly amateur, the tidy and efficient, and the 'pseuds corner' type

 

Think what the planner would like to see, that would make their job easy.

A short document. well laid out, with space and structure.

It might only be one page if that is all there is to say.

Use headings followed by the necessary information.

If applicable , refer to local conditions that might be an issue.

Perhaps some pictures , if relevant. (eg the church with the unsympathetic surroundings ( planner realises that the damage is done)

Avoid jargon and waffle.

 

To summarise, the planner will want some issues to be addressed. If you set out:  'here is what you will want to question, and here is the answer', then they will like that.

 

It can help to have a short overview and/or summary, and why not make it personal? No need to pretend you are a consultant; let them know it is you, the applicant. 

Then, if there are any issues, they are likely to be considerate and ask for clarification.

 

I have engaged Planning Consultants, but only for very sensitive applications, contrary to the borough plan, and needing specialist knowledge of precedent etc. 

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2021 by saveasteading

[DevilDamo]

From a submission point of view, what ‘type’ of person along with their experience and/or qualifications is irrelevant. The only time it would be of some importance is the difference between knowing and not knowing the LPA’s policies with any forthcoming design proposal.

[Deejay]

Thank you for your responses which have been very helpful.  The Pre-planning enquiry response included the planning policies that needed to be taken into account and also other planning applications on the Local Authority Planning site were really useful.  I am OK with the content and style of the two statements and as far as I can see the information re the Heritage item, which was covered in a statement done by a professional company for a property metres away from us, is the same as the info required for our application, but adapted accordingly eg they are on the south side of the Church, wheareas we are on the northern side.  

I've emailed the alternative Arch Tech with all our stuff, and asked for a quote.  We shall see whether he advises whether we should pay for a professional Heritage Statement.  I'll report back on the outcome.

[Temp]

7 hours ago, Deejay said:

  If I wait and go with the son, I think he will be Ok submitting my efforts re these 2 documents (which are pretty OK I think). Do Planning prefer an expert's name on these statements. 

 

I don't think there is any reason why you can't call yourself an Architectural Technician. Think only Architects must be chartered.

[DevilDamo]

58 minutes ago, Temp said:

Think only Architects must be chartered.

Ahem, don’t forget Chartered Architectural Technologists ?

[Temp]

+1

 

Found a guide here..

 

https://www.localarchitectsdirect.co.uk/architect-architectural-technologist-designer-or-technician

[Deejay]

Crikey - I didn't realise there were all these "specialists" - I thought it was either Architect (very expensive) or architectural technician (less expensive and less advisory as regards design).  Architectural technicians tend to have company names that lead you to believe they are architects.  I know the art tech we used in 2011 was exactly that ie a technician and the guy I have sent our draft plans to this week is also a technician, although you wouldn't know it if you were just looking them up on the internet and weren't aware of the different "professional" statuses.   

 

[DevilDamo]

Architects are RIBA/ARB and is a protected title. Chartered Architectural Technologists are FCIAT/MCIAT and is also a protected title. You then have Architectural Technicians, etc…