Planning applications

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-14T08:55:09Z

Chris Nash:

I'm more bothered about whether I should or should not be reporting these as major or minor applications in our returns. It seems that if the site area exceeds 1 hectare, as put forward by the applicant, then we take it as a major (even if they could revise that location plan to narrow down the red line to the footprint of the actual development and blue line the rest). Seems ridiculous as it results in some pretty minor development ending up in the major group.

You could check with MHCLG, but I suspect they will be happy for you to apply your own judgement. I have noticed that PINS occasionally classify sites we've counted as major development in our PS1/2 as non-major development in their own stats.

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-13T15:50:44Z

Chris Nash:

I'm more bothered about whether I should or should not be reporting these as major or minor applications in our returns. It seems that if the site area exceeds 1 hectare, as put forward by the applicant, then we take it as a major (even if they could revise that location plan to narrow down the red line to the footprint of the actual development and blue line the rest). Seems ridiculous as it results in some pretty minor development ending up in the major group.

I dont think i have the answer, but i wonder if the DELTA user guide pubilshed by MHCLG helps, in particular the Appendix - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/district-planning-matters-return-ps1-and-ps2/ps1-and-ps2-district-planning-matters-return-guidance-notes#appendix

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-13T08:05:13Z

If I was a planning agent submitting on behalf of a client for any and all planning applications I would be very careful to draw up an accurate location plan that outines the development area in red and the larger ownership in blue.

I am of the understanding that a red boundary is required and a blue one is optional. I think most planning authorities would return a submission without a defined red line every single time - the alternative would be literally to imagine the boundary or place a tiny circle.

The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 seems to be perfectly clear on this..

"A location plan should be based on an up-to-date map. The scale should typically be 1:1250 or 1:2500, but wherever possible the plan should be scaled to fit onto A4 or A3 size paper. A location plan should identify sufficient roads and/or buildings on land adjoining the application site to ensure that the exact location of the application site is clear.

The application site should be edged clearly with a red line on the location plan. It should include all land necessary to carry out the proposed development (eg land required for access to the site from a public highway, visibility splays, landscaping, car parking and open areas around buildings). A blue line should be drawn around any other land owned by the applicant, close to or adjoining the application site.

Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 14-024-20140306"

As an agent my thinking would be that minimising the area bounded by red potentially minimises the application fee for any category dependent on site area and the addition of a blue line potentially minimises the amount of neighbour notification and potentially negates the need for public advertising. Both of these reduce the ambiguity in validation by planning department which is likely to increase the speed to validation.

It is suprising to me how few agents add blue line boundaries to their location plans your case would be a situation where it would be particularly appropriate. As someone who has done validation you have to accept the integrity of the applicant in defining the boundaries I think post validation and during assessment any intentional manipulation of the submitted facts would come out resulting in a straight refusal or potentially request for resubmission.

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-07T09:30:27Z

Ah I see - let me swap ends of the stick - I had grasped the wrong one

Yes - it often does feel odd to describe some plant on the roof of a large factory as 'major development' just because the applicant red lines the entire site - but doing anything else would contravene the Order and would be unlawful if that is the application they have submitted

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-07T08:57:05Z

I'm more bothered about whether I should or should not be reporting these as major or minor applications in our returns. It seems that if the site area exceeds 1 hectare, as put forward by the applicant, then we take it as a major (even if they could revise that location plan to narrow down the red line to the footprint of the actual development and blue line the rest). Seems ridiculous as it results in some pretty minor development ending up in the major group.

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-07T08:54:09Z

I can absolutely see there is technically headspace for a difference of view with an LPA about the exact requirements of the DMPO - but I have to wonder why not take the path of least resistance if the LPA wants a red edge not an arrow etc - without knowing more it seems to me that you'll just be causing more delay to your application?

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-07T08:50:15Z

Thanks Richard - this is hugely helpful.

It seems that, when reading ground 6 of the judgement, that there is nothing an LPA can do in law to force the inclusion of 'surplus' land in the red line when it can be shown that land is not necessasry for the development concerned (i.e. it doesn't involve a MatCoU or provide for a new access), although many will rest on the PPG to ensure adequate 'working space' around the physical development is included.

It still remains to me, however, that I could (in law) submit a site location plan with an arrow saying 'it's here' when I'm identifing "the land to which the application relates".

RE: Major or minor

2025-10-07T08:38:12Z

There is in fact a requirement in law to identify the extent of the site. See 7.c.1 at The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

There is related PPG guidance around this issue at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Plans-and-drawings

And a useful discussion from the Court in relation to Ground 6 of this case https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1434.html

Ultimately, if an application is submitted showing a site of 1 hectare or more, this is a major application, if the application site is drawn smaller, but the planning unit is obviously larger, this will be a minor application but there could be a debate with the LPA about whether it is a valid planning application at all depending on the circumstances

Hope that helps

Major or minor

2025-10-06T16:16:44Z

Seeking a bit of guidance from how other LPAs approach this circumstance:

- Floorspace provided is less than 100sqm, or is just plant & machinery, yet the site area is over 1 hectare.

Major or minor?

The key for me is how you define "development carried out on a site having an area of 1 hectare or more" - this depending on how you look at the extent of the 'development carried out' and what 'the site' is, bearing in mind that (in law) there is no requirement for a red line to define either.

Answers on a postcard please!

RE: Planning and Building control admin merger

2025-06-12T11:04:28Z

Hi,

I know this discussion thread is years old(!), but I would be interested for any brief list of pros and cons people have found from merging their Planning & Building Control Admin teams. How did the joint registration/validation duties pan out in practice? Phone duties still separate? Still separate finance codes for taking the Planning & Building Control fees etc? What worked and what didn't? I would really appreciate some feedback from local authorities who merged Planning & Building Control Admin teams a few years ago. Many thanks, John

RE: Can you apply for something that does not need PP?

2025-06-02T12:23:33Z

I wouldn't dream of speaking for either of you!

RE: Can you apply for something that does not need PP?

2025-05-29T17:09:45Z

Now that begs the question was Graham not wishing to speak for me or thee?

RE: Can you apply for something that does not need PP?

2025-05-25T12:17:02Z

Graham said "Without wishing to speak for Richard, I think that is exactly what is being said" - and he nailed it. Fully agree with Graham here.

RE: Can you apply for something that does not need PP?

2025-05-20T08:00:55Z

Thanks Graham, yes

There will of course be some kind of beyond-nonsense cases where LPAs could quite safely ignore the Act and unlawfully bin the application without fear, but most real life cases are more marginal e.g. buildings which would be PD etc, use for agriculture etc

RE: Can you apply for something that does not need PP?

2025-05-19T11:15:46Z

Hi Brian,

Without wishing to speak for Richard, I think that is exactly what is being said. And for what it's worth, I've been persuaded. The Saxby case indicates that the local planning authority should not, on application for planning permission, engage in the exercise of determining whether or not the proposed works require planning permission in any way. To do so would circumvent the process of obtaining a Certificate of Lawfulness. The Act simply requires the LPA to determine any application on the basis of all its material considerations. In the situations you queried, I think there would be nothing to stop the LPA explaining why it felt the applicant could withdraw the application prior to being made valid without there being any risk of a breach of planning control should the proposal proceed. However, that would be a decision for the applicant. If they insisted (and had a valid application, including the relevant fee) the LPA would be under an obligation to determine their application.

RE: Planning conditions and extant permissions

2025-05-15T08:49:31Z

Thanks Sue

I agree with others that the condition does not protect the tree if the planning permission is not being implemented

So assuming the site is not in a Conservation Area and the tree is not subject to a TPO (and the tree is not protected under some other condition on some other permission that has been implemented, and it is not in scope of any kind of legal agreement, and whoever is doing the felling has the owner's permission etc) it seems the tree can be felled

Now the fact that this is an outline planning permission raises the interesting question (that might not be directly relevant in the present case) as to whether it would be possible to devise a REM application which was in accordance with the Outline PP when something like this happens

RE: Planning conditions and extant permissions

2025-05-14T16:10:47Z

Outline Planning Permission to:

Demolish existing dwelling and erect two detached houses with associated garage block on land opposite.

Planning condition:

The existing sycamore tree shown on dwg. no.WEN/1149/07/00/A1 shall not be topped, lopped, felled, uprooted or pruned without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authjhority.

RE: Planning conditions and extant permissions

2025-05-14T15:46:58Z

Hi Sue - would you mind posting the full text of the condition and the description of development on the planning permission - probably won't add to what others have said but it would help to have the full picture

RE: Planning conditions and extant permissions

2025-05-14T15:45:33Z

But with the risk of losing the planning permission if a condition can no longer be complied with if a tree has been felled

RE: Planning conditions and extant permissions

2025-05-14T09:21:13Z

Yes. If the permission has lapsed, as it has not been implemented, then any condition attached to that permission is not enforceable.