Major or minor - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

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

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".

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?

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.

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

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.