Pre app vs. Planning consultant

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah, I think this 'we refuse to talk to our customers' thing is just making everything much slower and more resource intensive - for the LPA as well as the applicant.

 

In my case, I've now put in one pre-app (the seller had also put in one), two applications, two appeals, I've just filed my costs with the LPA and I'll submit the original application again on Friday.

 

I'm pretty sure now I'll get to build what I asked for on the pre-app several years ago.

 

If the case officer had read it properly and discusssed it with me for an hour, we could all have saved a couple of years and a lot of resource.

 

This is like doctors refusing to talk to their patients; polititians refusing to talk to their constituents; businesses refusing to talk to their customers (all online businesses?). It's all going to go downhill fast and then someone will discover that a 10 minute chat could avoid work for everyone lasting several years.

[IanR]

21 hours ago, mjc55 said:

I don't get the posts above where people are saying some authorities will not discuss applications, how is this possible?  

 

9 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Who said that and in what context?

 

Our local LPA say they are protecting their Planning Officers who have been subject to abuse. They no longer publish which PO is assigned a case and will not respond to any calls/messages regarding a live application. If/When they come out for a site visit you'll be told there's no officer assigned, they now share duties. If you want to discuss an application you have to do a pre-app.

They're gaming the system, increasing the cost of an application and reducing the time from validation to decision.

[DevilDamo]

5 hours ago, mjc55 said:

This one!

LPA’s don’t “have to” engage with applicants or agents during the formal determination process. I know one or two who do not.

[garrymartin]

10 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

LPA’s don’t “have to” engage with applicants or agents during the formal determination process. I know one or two who do not.

Not strictly true...

 

NPPF Paragraph 38
"**38.** Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible."

[DevilDamo]

16 minutes ago, garrymartin said:

Not strictly true...

Well, it is true as it has, does and continue to happen. The LPA’s I referred to state their positive and pro-active engagement is by way of offering pre-application advice.

[PNAmble]

Northumberland refuse to engage, they won’t even engage over discharge of conditions.
 

 Yet the sign all decision notices saying In dealing with the application we have worked with the applicant in a positive and pro active manner and have implemented the requirement in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework

 

They continually reject discharge of conditions applications when a simple ‘can you submit document X’ would solve the problem.  When I complained they said ‘you are welcome to submit applications  as many time as you require to clear a condition but we no longer engage in the process as we don’t have the resources’.  So each time they request additional documents to clear a condition it costs me more money.  

[Alan Ambrose]

That’s the other thing that’s teeing me off with LPAs atm.

 

They’re ignoring the ***** rules. Mine ignores the 8 weeks or negotiate-the-timing rule. They also ignored the absolute basics in the Procedural Guide for appeals and the inspector let them. When your state institutions themselves lie, I mean ‘mislead’ with their stats and ignore the rules, then everything is falling apart rapidly.

 

A friend who’s an architect and has worked in France tells me that if their equivalent of the LPA don’t meet the specified timing, then the application is automatically allowed.

[Alan Ambrose]

@DevilDamo can I ask - you’re a planner / ex-planner / planning consultant?

[Oz07]

They've been missing the determination deadline for years here. All they get you to do is agree to an extension of time or say that you can appeal. You don't have much choice. 

[DevilDamo]

17 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

@DevilDamo can I ask - you’re a planner / ex-planner / planning consultant?

Neither. 

[Oz07]

Not allowing ammendments during planning seems crazy. Do they just refuse and make you re submit?

[mjc55]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

LPA’s don’t “have to” engage with applicants or agents during the formal determination process. I know one or two who do not.

To be honest I am uncertain where you are  going with this!  Are you saying that you think it reasonable that they do not engage or simply stating that in some cases they don't?

 

[mjc55]

I submitted a number of applications for clients from about 2012 until about 2021.  All of the applications were in Wiltshire and not once was there an occasion where discussion did not take place with the planning officer.  I did a couple of applications for acquaintances late last year and early this, again in Wiltshire, and there had seemed to be a change in the way things were working.  The applications were processed by junior members of the planning team who put forward their findings and what they deemed to be the decision to senior planners before the actual decision was made.

 

When I was submitting applications it was always a waiting game to find out which officer was dealing with an application, it was at this point that one could understand how much of a task an application might be.  This was in stark contrast to BR applications to the LA where a much more pragmatic approach was taken.  Obviously building regs are a much more proscriptive thing but that didn't fully explain the difference between the two functions.

 

The idea that now no discussion between applicant and planning department can take place is preposterous and if that is the case then the planning system is failing and something needs to be done to fix it.

[DevilDamo]

1 hour ago, Oz07 said:

Not allowing ammendments during planning seems crazy. Do they just refuse and make you re submit?

It depends upon the discretion of the LPA and PO. Significant amendments are not usually accepted, but minor amendments. LPA’s have a little more control over that, now the “free go” has been removed.

Edited September 18 by DevilDamo

[DevilDamo]

41 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

To be honest I am uncertain where you are  going with this!  Are you saying that you think it reasonable that they do not engage or simply stating that in some cases they don't?

 

You asked how is it possible that LPA’s do not engage and I said they don’t have to.

 

I do find it frustrating and unreasonable where even minor amendments are not accepted. I can see why significant changes are not welcomed as that would usually result in some re-consultation, therefore prolonging the determination period and the PO having it on their desk for a lot longer. But with the “free-go” now no longer a thing, LPA’s know that a refusal on what could be minor grounds would in most cases result in a re-submission, new payment and new target dates. The Appeal process also plays to their advantage.

[kandgmitchell]

The loss of the "free go" is a real concern, it can only encourage some LA's to see planning applications as a money making exercise. If it was bad before, it's going to get a great deal worse now!

[Oz07]

Why has the free go principle been removed?

[DevilDamo]

The removal of the free go is designed to “encourage applicants to engage in pre-application discussions and support the submission of high-quality applications first time round”.

[joe90]

44 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

The removal of the free go is designed to “encourage applicants to engage in pre-application discussions and support the submission of high-quality applications first time round”.

But we hear so often that planers are not willing to engage 🤷‍♂️and that’s been my experience more than once.

Edited September 19 by joe90

[Alan Ambrose]

See 'doublespeak':

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

 

George Orwell saw this coming in 1949, clever guy. He told us how it works and we said 'hey, that seeks a good idea'.

[DevilDamo]

5 hours ago, joe90 said:

But we hear so often that planers are not willing to engage 🤷‍♂️and that’s been my experience more than once.

But more willing to engage if a draft/proposal has gone through a pre-app process first. I’ve seen a load of cr*p submitted to LPA’s.

[Oz07]

For me I still think ill do the pre app. I think its a scandalous fee for the service. However if i get a positive response and then they go on to actually refuse the application surely that would be outrageous. I feel like I would feel more confident with a positive response from the planners rather than a consultant. 

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> if i get a positive response and then they go on to actually refuse the application surely that would be outrageous

 

We had two pre-apps: one by the previous owner of the plot. One said simply ‘can we build a 1.5 storey?’ (There was already permission for a single storey.) Answer was ‘yes’. Seems the LPA significantly hardened their attitude over time. The single storey application had a single line in the design & access statement re the relationship to the ‘heritage asset’ farmhouse about 75m away. That was deemed sufficient by the heritage guys. For our later applications, the LPA demanded extensive heritage statements - this is for the same plot. Our 1.5 storey design was thrown out for the reason ‘too big’. This, without explanation of what would be an appropriate size and an extensive analysis by us of all the dwellings in the cluster, some of which are 1.5 storey and an 1.5 application has been approved next door.

 

The second pre-app had our single storey design. This time the LPA didn’t like the idea that the building wasn’t positioned exactly parallel to the road, despite the fact that we explained that this was to ensure minimum south facing exposure for solar gain but maximum effective PV generation through the day. The LPA has a specific policy to support this approach re orientation to the sun. Also there are 4 hotch-potch barns next door with different orientations, heights, shapes, roof slopes etc and we would just be seen as part of this set-up. Many, many months later, the same case officer tells us he wants to approve this same design that he ‘turned down’ at pre-app. Nevertheless, the LPA then argued against this design at appeal with some spurious arguments that the inspector then threw out. So, that’s two flip flops. I’m pretty sure we’ll end up building that design after resubmitting it. 

This is not pre-app but similar. For our present barn conversion, heritage told the developer ‘knock it down if you want to, it has no heritage value’. The developer ended up converting the existing barn. Trying to get our PD rights re-instated, the LPA argued ‘it was important that they had control, so they could preserve its historic barn-like qualities’. Yeah, right.

 

Note that you are unlikely to get any explanation or apology for any change of in LPA’s view. I think as they know there’s no come back then the LPA’s give the pre-apps to junior people and they spend no time on them at all - they’re probably the least important bit of work they do and a small money earner if they can knock them out quick. The LPAs care not a jot that you may expend considerable resource based on their advice, but are happy to change their mind on a dime without any expectation that they will need to explain or justify their change of opinion.

 

So, I will now always opt for full applications - at least the results of those are ‘material’ (i.e. you can argue the LPA’s present decisions should be consistent with their past ones.) Whereas pre-apps are not.

 

Now I think that there is great randomness and variation between LPAs and even between case officers at the same LPA. So, you can also be lucky or unlucky at the amount of real communication and the veracity of the advice/decisions. That is, pre-apps are a complete crap-shoot random number generator imo.

Edited September 20 by Alan Ambrose

[Oz07]

I suppose the insurance is the current live planning, not that I want that. The council has confirmed a material start so that is in the bag. Also it sounds like govt are going to start making councils be more accommodating on these green/grey belt sites. Haven't they already introduced mandatory targets again. If they mess about too much conditions might favour an application for more than 1 house!

[DevilDamo]

12 hours ago, Oz07 said:

However if i get a positive response and then they go on to actually refuse the application surely that would be outrageous.

Don’t let that put you off. You will always find informal Pre-app responses are caveated that it represents the opinion of that particular officer and not the Council. But Pre-app discussions are recommended for the more complex/detailed/sensitive proposals.

 

I always say applications are refused (guilty) unless you can prove otherwise (innocent).