Information stated as illustrative on the application should be so treated, notwithstanding that the information required by the GDPO is clearly identified. Similarly, information which clearly relates to a reserved matter must also be considered as illustrative. For example, an elevation may be used to describe scale, but only the information necessary to describe the scale should be considered, and any other details such as fenestration should be treated as illustrative. If the information is not adequate in relation to the GDPO then additional information can be requested, and if the applicant considers adequate information has been submitted then there is a right of appeal. Sometimes more detailed information may be appropriate, for example if there is an overlooking concern then some floor plan information may be appropriate to show how overlooking can be avoided, but this can still be illustrative since its purpose will be to demonstrate that development is possible without overlooking, although the detailed design may subsequently vary the plan layout. If it is really not possible to make a reasoned judgement based on either the submitted or requested information, illustrative or otherwise, then it can be requested that certain matters are not reserved. However, the outline process remains an extremely valuable option where detailed design is not sensible until the principle of development of a site (often a windfall site) is established, making a more economic use of resources for both the applicant and the LPA, and in many ways a complementary process to the allocation of sites within development plans. The request for unnecessary detail should therefore be resisted.
