LPAs playing around with 'validation' timescales?

[Alan Ambrose]

I have direct experience of the planning inspectorate using very long 'validation' timescales e.g. 4 months. I suspect this is to manipulate the .gov stats.

 

Is anybody having difficulties in the time for applications moving from the 'planning portal' to LPA systems? I have one at 1.5 weeks so far.

[DevilDamo]

The application leaves the PP system and is transferred to the LPA once the fee has been paid/dealt with.

[Alan Ambrose]

Yes, but the question is how long the LPA leaves it in limbo, with the clock ‘not ticking’.

[DevilDamo]

That wasn’t what you originally asked. The answer to your next question is dependant on their workload. If the application is deemed to be valid at the time of submission, then it will be backdated.

[Tetrarch]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

That wasn’t what you originally asked. The answer to your next question is dependant on their workload. If the application is deemed to be valid at the time of submission, then it will be backdated.

 

This is incorrect. From my own planning applications

 

Received: Tue 30 Jan 2024 | Validated: Tue 20 Feb 2024 | Status: Granted

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

18 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I have direct experience of the planning inspectorate using very long 'validation' timescales e.g. 4 months. I suspect this is to manipulate the .gov stats.

...

 

Yes, OK.

Lets reframe the issue  and attempt to turn what I suspect is something like irritation into something posistive. 

 

Lets start with an End In Mind:

To Determine whether or not HMPI  is unreasonably delaying the Validation beyond the stated timescale of [.... I've forgotten ...] weeks

 

Because I haven't got the time, and this sort of issue is probably about information handling - and standard stuff at that - I ran the issue through ChatGTP.

Other AIs will probably do a better job: but 'tis what I've got easy access to.....

Here's the ChatGTP response  (My emphasis for those who want to skim)

 

Quote

To make an effective complaint about Her Majesty's Planning Inspectorate (HMPI), it's essential to follow a structured approach, use clear language, and focus on the specific issues you've encountered. Here’s a guide on how to make your complaint as compelling and actionable as possible:

 

1. Understand the Scope of Complaints They Handle
HM Planning Inspectorate is responsible for making decisions on planning appeals, national infrastructure planning applications, and local development plans. Your complaint should be about issues related to their procedures or how decisions were handled—not simply dissatisfaction with a planning decision.

Valid complaints might include:

Unreasonable delays in decision-making
Procedural errors
Miscommunication or lack of communication
Professional misconduct or bias
2. Gather Evidence and Documentation
Collect any relevant documents, such as:

Correspondence (emails, letters)
Official responses
Evidence of delays or procedural issues (e.g., dates and timelines showing the delay)
Keep copies of any documents you submit with your complaint, as you may need to refer to them later.

3. Identify the Right Contact and Process
Start by following the Planning Inspectorate's official complaints process. Their complaints procedure is generally outlined on their website and typically involves:

Making an informal complaint to the inspector or officer involved
Escalating to a formal complaint if the informal approach doesn’t resolve the issue
After exhausting the internal process, if you’re unsatisfied with their response, you can escalate to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) through your MP. They handle complaints about UK government services, including HMPI.

4. Structure Your Complaint Letter
An effective complaint letter should be well-structured. Here’s a recommended outline:

Introduction: Start with a clear statement that you are filing a formal complaint against the Planning Inspectorate, including any relevant reference numbers.

Summary of Issues: Briefly outline your main issues and how they have impacted you. Be concise but precise.

Details of the Complaint: List specific instances, dates, and evidence of errors, delays, or procedural issues. Stay factual and avoid emotional language.

Explain Your Attempts at Resolution: Mention any attempts you've made to resolve the issue informally or previous complaints you've filed, and the outcome of those efforts.

Desired Outcome: Clearly state what resolution you are seeking, whether it’s an apology, correction of a procedural error, or reconsideration of a decision.

Attach Evidence: If possible, attach copies of relevant documents to support your claims.

5. Follow Up and Track Your Complaint
Keep track of all correspondence related to the complaint, including dates of submission and any responses. Following up politely but consistently can help move the process along.

6. Consider Escalation if Needed
If the internal complaints process doesn’t resolve your issue satisfactorily, your next step would be to approach the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman through your MP.

https://chatgpt.com/c/6729ef30-bb14-8004-b20b-ebae04634a7e downloaded 05/11/2024

 

We (BuildHub) have about 5,000 (?) members, of whom some at least have experienced delays - unreasonable delays - in the processing the paperwork. 

 

See Point 2 above. 

How about starting a thread on BH asking directly and succinctly about the time it takes the  Planning Inspectorate takes to validate an application?

Thanks @Tetrarch

 

 

Take it away @Alan Ambrose

 

[BigBub]

1 hour ago, Tetrarch said:

 

This is incorrect. From my own planning applications

 

Received: Tue 30 Jan 2024 | Validated: Tue 20 Feb 2024 | Status: Granted

 

 

If you submitted an application through the Planning Portal and all required particulars were provided along with the correct fee then the council has to deem the validation date as the date they receive the application, not a date 1 or 2 weeks later when they have processed and registered the application. If they are not doing this then they are manipulating the system

[mjc55]

1 hour ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

Yes, OK.

Lets reframe the issue  and attempt to turn what I suspect is something like irritation into something posistive. 

 

Lets start with an End In Mind:

To Determine whether or not HMPI  is unreasonably delaying the Validation beyond the stated timescale of [.... I've forgotten ...] weeks

 

Because I haven't got the time, and this sort of issue is probably about information handling - and standard stuff at that - I ran the issue through ChatGTP.

Other AIs will probably do a better job: but 'tis what I've got easy access to.....

Here's the ChatGTP response  (My emphasis for those who want to skim)

 

https://chatgpt.com/c/6729ef30-bb14-8004-b20b-ebae04634a7e downloaded 05/11/2024

 

We (BuildHub) have about 5,000 (?) members, of whom some at least have experienced delays - unreasonable delays - in the processing the paperwork. 

 

See Point 2 above. 

How about starting a thread on BH asking directly and succinctly about the time it takes the  Planning Inspectorate takes to validate an application?

Thanks @Tetrarch

 

 

Take it away @Alan Ambrose

 

Off topic I know, but I am increasingly irritated by the use of chatgpt in more and more places!  Nothing personal Mr buttercup by the way. 

 

I know this has been done to death in many places but I really don't understand why it is relied upon so much.  I know I am old fashioned in my view but surely I am not alone in thinking that it is not healthy to rely on technology for your rational thinking!

[Alan Ambrose]

Yeah, I'm not a great fan of AI instead of human input. I think it's going to turn a lot of stuff (with some focused knowledge domain problems as an exception) into sometimes-hallucinating mush.

 

>>> the council has to deem the validation date as the date they receive the application

 

Thanks, I didn't know that. Is it possible the LPA raises some dumb validation queries e.g. 'there isn't a red line denoting the boundary' - 'here it is - see under the big red circle with the big red arrow pointing to it' (I've had that before) - and count from there? I'm suspicious as my LPA is in the bottom 20 nationwide i.e. a few points off 'special measures'. They might then have a strong incentive to manipulate their stats.

 

I believe the inspectorate OTOH does mislead with their stats - 3 standard appeals I've tracked (2 mine, 1 my neighbour's) took 4 months before they reached 'validation'. If you read the small print, you'll see the inspectorate calculate their .gov stats from 'validation' until decision. Of course, 3 data points don't make a statistic - you would need an analysis of all or most of the inspectorate's data.

 

 

[ToughButterCup]

42 minutes ago, mjc55 said:

Off topic I know, but I am increasingly irritated by the use of chatgpt in more and more places!  Nothing personal Mr buttercup by the way. 

 

I know this has been done to death in many places but I really don't understand why it is relied upon so much.  I know I am old fashioned in my view but surely I am not alone in thinking that it is not healthy to rely on technology for your rational thinking!

 

Could not agree more. I use it every day (as does my OH) She is resposible for Academic Standards at an HEI in the north of the UK. AI is a complete and utter nightmare. 

 

I always mistrust AI responses - so to check  I skim them and run them through another AI. And then compare . And do another check. In this case less than 5% difference, and in this totally routine - Raise a Complaint - process the content stands up to quick inspection. 

 

In terms of the mere typing It makes the difference between making the time to help anothe or BH member or not. 

[DevilDamo]

4 hours ago, Tetrarch said:

 

This is incorrect. From my own planning applications

 

Received: Tue 30 Jan 2024 | Validated: Tue 20 Feb 2024 | Status: Granted

 

 

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove? That reads you submitted the application on 30th January but it was invalid. It then took about 3 weeks for the correct or additional information to be submitted and the LPA then deemed the application as valid.

[DevilDamo]

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Is it possible the LPA raises some dumb validation queries

Whether they are “dumb” is a matter of judgement.

 

And btw, use the “quote” function.

Edited November 5 by DevilDamo

[G and J]

Just for info we are in the same LPA as @Alan Ambrose

 

We have submitted

 

A preapp, with response within timescale (just)

A full planning app (demolish bungalow/build house), that following the need to redo the 21 day consultation period, took 1 week from receipt to validation, 14 weeks from validation to decision

A NMA application is currently in train, validated day of receipt

 

The full planning app and NMA app was undertaken by local (known) architect, everything was available at outset

 

Broadly same scale as house next door one side, but will be only timber clad property in road and borders conservation area so not an absolute slam dunk.

 

Not sure what all that tells anybody but.......

[Alan Ambrose]

Well who knows. As I said, I guess small numbers of data points don't make a stat. My neighbour's v. straightforward and unopposed application took 53 weeks.

 

Perhaps it's related to the case officer, situation (these are in a small hamlet) etc. Or just random.

 

I guess, given the measuring stat's focus on 8 weeks, there's an LPA incentive to either get it done by then, or ... don't worry how long it takes, as they've missed the stat anyway. I guess there's a little additional incentive to get it done by (I think) 26 weeks, as that's when the refund kicks in.

[Tetrarch]

On 05/11/2024 at 14:29, DevilDamo said:

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove? That reads you submitted the application on 30th January but it was invalid. It then took about 3 weeks for the correct or additional information to be submitted and the LPA then deemed the application as valid.

 

You are incorrect. The application was absolutely unchanged from its submission on 30th January. No corrections, additions or queries. It's only upon checking my emails that I realised that my architect sent a chaser on 20th Feb. The validation email was expedited the same day and not backdated

 

Additionally, every single one of my numerous applications decisions were advised on day 56, with one exception which was day 55

 

Regards

 

Tet

Edited November 6 by Tetrarch

[DevilDamo]

3 minutes ago, Tetrarch said:

The validation email was expedited the same day and not backdated

Well that is (or was) down to your Architect to query as that is not how applications are validated.

[Tetrarch]

13 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Well that is (or was) down to your Architect to query as that is not how applications are validated.

 

Would you kindly tell me what the process actually is and what I am apparently misunderstanding?

 

If the approved application (per the council's website) is identical to the original submission then is there any excuse for the validation not to have been backdated?

 

Regards

 

Tet 

[DevilDamo]

@Tetrarch 

 

1. Submit a valid application.

2. Application is validated and the clock starts.

3. Decision issued 8 weeks later (for the majority of applications).

 

It isn’t anymore straight forward than that.

 

If you submit an invalid application, the application is invalid and the clock starts when it is made valid, usually upon receipt of amended or additional information. If you submit a valid application but the LPA take their time or do not back date it, then you are to bring that up with the LPA.

 

If you don’t receive a decision within 8 weeks, you can Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. As Appeals are not quick, agreeing an Extension of Time with the LPA is usually more helpful to all parties.

 

As your application has been determined, I’m not sure what your or the issue is.

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> If you submitted an application through the Planning Portal and all required particulars were provided along with the correct fee then the council has to deem the validation date as the date they receive the application, not a date 1 or 2 weeks later when they have processed and registered the application.

 

Is that an actual rule defined somewhere or a convention which might vary between LPAs?

 

I just received this nonsense:

 

Unfortunately your application is incomplete and cannot be registered as a valid planning application. To complete the application, please submit the following:

 

1) Please can you confirm you are happy with the change in description, from:-

Change of dwelling design for xxxxxx and yyyyy- single storey design. Resubmission of zzzzz following Inspector's material approval of both the design and impact on the LB. This is a self build.

 

to:-

 

Construction of 1 no. single storey dwelling (revised design)

 

There are some rules somewhere re application titles?

 

On related subjects:

 

Do LPAs generally receive all the docs from the Planning Portal and load them onto their own systems, or are they using a direct view onto the Portal's database?

 

I see LPA's have similar but not identical web interfaces for applicants and local residents? Are they generally using one or two standard systems, have written them in-house, or or a view onto the Portal's database?

 

And, do applicant's generally use the Portal's 'amend application' functionality or just send new docs to the LPA directly?

 

BTW I see "TerraQuest Solutions Limited" run the Portal. It produced a £5.6m profit in its last accounts and is owned by "Mason Bidco Limited" which is owned by "MASON MIDCO LIMITED" that is owned by "Mason Holdco Limited" that is owned by "Mason Topco Limited" which has "0 active persons with significant control". These guys seem to regularly pop up all along the way: https://apsecapital.com/#team

 

 

[BigBub]

@Alan Ambrose

 

The The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) defines what a valid application is under Article 34, Part 6 which also mentions that a valid application is taken to have been received when the application, and such of the documents, particulars or evidence referred to above as are required to be included in, or to accompany, the application have been lodged with the appropriate authority mentioned in article 11(1) and the fee required to be paid has been paid.

 

When you submit an application via the planning portal, the council receives the application and all documents by email and the fee is transferred over to them.

 

The LPA can not treat the application as invalid until you agree to their change of the description. Refer to the following which mentions that Checking the accuracy of the description of development should not delay validation of an application: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Changes-to-the-description-of-development

[Alan Ambrose]

Many thanks for that clarification.

[Gus Potter]

7 hours ago, BigBub said:

The LPA can not treat the application as invalid until you agree to their change of the description. Refer to the following which mentions that Checking the accuracy of the description of development should not delay validation of an application:

This is a great point. I've experienced this where the planners have used this as a delaying tactic. They then go off and use their own terms. I've said NO.. your change of description could cause my Client difficulty when they come to sell. This is a legally binding process that not just involves you the planners so get a grip!

 

The application must be treated as valid.. the submitted drawings clearly show what is intended as does all the other documentation which is compliant with the recognised submission format. The portal is not in it's self part of the true legal process.. you could send in paper drawings for example.. and just say I am submittting an application for a new house.. here are the drawings. 

 

 

[DevilDamo]

@Alan Ambrose Still not getting used to the “quote” function so others would be made aware of your responses or queries 🙄 You do like making this more than it has to be.

[Gus Potter]

25 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

You do like making this more than it has to be.

Hope you are sure of your ground here @DevilDamo!

 

Lets see how it pans out, every day is a skool day.

[Alan Ambrose]

@DevilDamo - by all means if you don't like my contributions, feel free to ignore them. There may even be a forum 'block member' option to help achieve that objective.

 

In other news - the LPA admitted there were no application naming rules (actually there is one - the application name needs to be somewhat accurate) but the excuse was offered by the LPA "we just like to try and make them as short as possible, especially when they have to be advertised in the press". I think that means they were embrassed by the application name. The LPA also confirmed they would backdate the validation date to the application date.

 

I just realised re the 8-week rule, that if you're the LPA, the best use of planning resource to optimise the stats is to get all the easy/quick-to-process applications done within 8-weeks (7.9 weeks is fine), then leave any that miss the cut-off on the back burner for as long as you care to or until some spare resource becomes available. Or until you become scared that you're going to hit the 70% special measures cutoff. But even then, you want to completely focus your resources on the 'can be done within 8-weeks' applications. Something like this distribution (below). If I was running the LPA, I might even issue red and green stickers