<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>Invalid Applications</title>
  <link rel="self" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=15545466" />
  <subtitle>Invalid Applications</subtitle>
  <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_thread?p_l_id=53683759&amp;threadId=15545466</id>
  <updated>2026-03-10T18:32:46Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2026-03-10T18:32:46Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>RE: Invalid Applications</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=17059286" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=17059286</id>
    <updated>2015-11-17T12:07:54Z</updated>
    <published>2015-11-17T12:07:54Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Sort of related to this topic, we are aware that some councils are charging an administrative fee where applications are invalid on receipt and the further information required (to&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;make the application valid) never arrives.&amp;nbsp; This administration fee is retained when the submitted fee is returned, and is to cover the costs incurred by the council.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It is something we are looking at, and wondered if anyone had experience of doing this they would like to share.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Thanks&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-11-17T12:07:54Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>RE: Invalid Applications</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15596799" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15596799</id>
    <updated>2015-07-15T09:05:23Z</updated>
    <published>2015-07-15T09:05:23Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Thank you Mark,thats helpful.&amp;nbsp; I will contact Wolverhampton and take a look around their website.&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-15T09:05:23Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>RE: Invalid Applications</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15594235" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15594235</id>
    <updated>2015-07-15T08:19:21Z</updated>
    <published>2015-07-15T08:19:21Z</published>
    <summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Hi Sam&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We've reduced our invalidity rate here through a much less prescriptive approach to validation - which required a cultural change in the staff involved, who were, at the outset,&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;protective of their function and their view of themselves as gatekeepers.&amp;nbsp; We have also developed&amp;nbsp;a closer dialogue between technical staff and development management officers, and&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; conversations between us and our regular agents have improved the quality of what we receive.&amp;nbsp; An Accredited Agents scheme, which we adopted 2 years ago, with the&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; incentive that accredited agents receive quicker decisions, has also driven-up the quality of applications.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Lastly, I'm aware that Wolverhampton city council has some interesting ideas on validation and you may wish to contact the Head of Planning there - Steve Alexander &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;( &lt;a href="mailto:Stephen.Alexander@wolverhampton.gov.uk"&gt;Stephen.Alexander@wolverhampton.gov.uk&lt;/a&gt; ).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Good luck&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Mark&lt;/p&gt;</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-15T08:19:21Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Invalid Applications</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15545465" />
    <author>
      <name>Former Member</name>
    </author>
    <id>https://khub.net/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=53683759&amp;messageId=15545465</id>
    <updated>2015-07-14T11:42:11Z</updated>
    <published>2015-07-14T11:42:11Z</published>
    <summary type="html">Dear All, I am aiming to reduce the number of invalid applications submitted.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;Our current invalid rate is 36%, the most common app types are FUL's, Householders and Listed Building Consents, the most common reasons for invalidity are plans and fees.&amp;nbsp; Does anyone have a very low invalid rate? Does anyone have any ideas about how to promote the necessary plans and fees?&amp;nbsp; Is there a general&amp;nbsp;accepted invalid rate for Planning?&amp;nbsp; Any thoughts would be great thanks.</summary>
    <dc:creator>Former Member</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2015-07-14T11:42:11Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>
