Reducing Invalid applications....could penalty fees be charged ? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Darren I like the idea, but my concern is that the process of actually making an application and complying with all the validation requirements etc has been made so complex that to then charge a penalty would be unfair. At my Council we've tried various means of reducing invalid apps. Sending the whole app back again (cheque included) with an explanatory letter Sending all bar 1 copy of the app back (banking the cheque) with an explanatory letter Providing a free pre-app service (works best but only if the service is taken up) Invalid apps are one of the biggest time wasting factors in planning both for Councils and applicants. I'd also be interested to hear if anyone has come up with other solutions.

Thanks for the response. I take the point on the complexity and I agree applying a blanket penalty for all invalid applications regardless of the reasons would be unjust. However the suggestion would be that it would only apply to agents/professional users and it could be made such that it is only applied when the invalid reason is deemed unacceptable (i.e. non submission of a location plan). It wouldn't solve the problem but would be a step in the right direction and would start to change agent behaviour to be more dilligent about checking their applications.

I've been doing a bit of thinking on this recently (as part of our new 'managing excellent planning services' work) and I think the problem needs a little reframing. The applicant (genuinely) has no interest in submitting poor quality applications - either directly or via an agent. There are possibly two separate issues: - "novice" applicants who will only ever make one or two applications in their lives - "lazy" applicants (often agents) who repeatedly rely on the LPA getting their application up to scratch These require different responses. The former need human pre-app (or a counter service). The cost is repaid by having higher quality applications to work on. The latter are best persuaded by making their performance public. The accredited agent scheme seems a little over-worked to me, why not a simple collation of the facts ? For example, on the homepage, Authority X has determined applications from agents in the following way: Agent A : 5 in total, 80% valid on receipt, 1 withdrawn, 3 granted, 1 refusal, average total time = 84 days Agent B : 4 in total, 100% valid on receipt, 0 withdrawn, 4 granted, 0 refusal, average total time = 54 days Agent C : 11 in total. 55% valid on receipt, 4 withdrawns, 6 granted, 1 refusal, average total time = 77 days It's simplistic, yes. But, without using 'accreditation' (aka 'vouching for') and just using facts I think you'd find it influenced the behaviour of agents overnight. After all, if you were a householder wanting to pick an agent who would you choose ? It's always worth thinking through how these things might be abused. Might this seem that the LPA only wants to work with "soft" agents who only put forward boring schemes ? Does it reflect the different complexity of work carried out by the agents ? there are some very interesting perspectives already in the open here http://portaldirector.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/planning-agent-accreditation/ Hmm. For all the disadvantages I really like the fact that all the data for making this happen already exists in the LPA back office and it could all be put together for free, tomorrow. We have lots of agents here. What do you think could be done to improve the quality of the work of the bottom 20% ?

The current posts assume that it is the fault of the agents. It could just as well be the fault of the local planning authority. Complicated local validation lists, often approached in a checklist manner do not help, nor does the vast plethora of forms that now make up the 1-app process. It helps if local authorities are helpful to applicants/agents, for example by phoning or e-mailing if something is wrong or even accepting an application if it happens to be made on not quite the correct form. The soon to close consultation on Simplifying Local Information Requirements is a step in the right direction.

We looked at publishing data - the good and the bad, but decided not to pursue it for a range of reasons. We are considering publishing 'reasons for invalidity' on the Planning Register - do others do this already? Did it make a difference? This discussion often seems to return to the thorny issue of the proportionality or flexibility of local requirements - are there any 'systems thinkers' out there with a perspective on this?

I have also been looking into the ability of an authority to charge for invalid applications, but received the following advice from our legal staff. With regard to the fees I know that some authorities do say that they will levy an administrative fee. For example Ealing states - “REFUNDS Fees cannot be refunded if an application is registered as valid, withdrawn, refused or amended. If you pay too much or if your application is returned as invalid, a refund can be made on written request in appropriate cases. However, we reserve the right to deduct a minimum charge to cover administration costs.” However the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) Regulations 1989 Regulation 3(5) states - “Any fee paid pursuant to this regulation shall be refunded if the application is rejected as invalidly made.” I cannot see any ability to retain an administration fee (unlike as you say Building Control fees) so if you do seek to make such a charge I think that this could be subject to challenge (on the basis that there is no statutory provision to charge a fee and instead an obligation to refund “any fee paid”) if someone decided to “take the point”. I am aware that both Dacorum Borough Council and Leeds City Council are now charging for invalid application, but I have not been able to ascertain under what legislation these charges are being levied as yet given the advice above.