1APP and Planning application requirements (draft) - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Thanks, the draft advice appears very similar to that which I have agreed across most of Kent. The link to the Ashford version which has been personalised to reflect local circumstances is below. Ii hope this is of assistance . The matrix looks helpful and could be something we would want to use. http://www.ashford.gov.uk/pdf/planningValidationAdvice.pdf

This looks useful Richard and I'm sure you'll get good feedback. We've adopted similar advice in our Planning Application Validation Guide here in Lancaster. Ours is quite a lengthy document, but we wanted to go further than just providing validation advice. We included basic details of how we operate as a Planning Authority and included 'Further Reading' boxes to direct developers to good practice or other pieces of useful legislation. Its available at www.lancaster.gov.uk/dcvalidation Mark.

As per other responses, anything that can try to standardise or regularise the requirements in relation to the submission of a planning application and do it in easy to understand way must be applauded. However as with most things the devil is in the detail. Although we all process planning applications there are distinct differences between authorities attached are comments from our validation manager which may be useful

We think that the validation could, perhaps, include: 1. Transport Assessments - reference of the need for Road Safety Audits, perhaps at the validation stage; and, 2. Community Infrastructure Levy

Richard Thanks for that I found it very useful and thought provoking. I used your matrix to compare it against the 1 app options selection and identified some anomalies. The anomolies could be down to me, your matrix or the 1 app options not being comprehensive enough I have enclosed a copy of your matrix with my issues inserted

Thank you for your interest and very helpful commentary. My original idea was that we might provide the filling for an applicant sandwich - i.e. we provide generic words which can be topped & tailed with the local branding and specifics. I am (now) aware that CLG is conducting a review of the PARM and might alter some of the guidance relating to the national requirements. This suggests that the end of the year might be an ideal opportunity to get a better idea of the level of interest there is in this type of content. In the interim, I'll use your comments to bring this work out of draft and put it on a page. Thanks again. Richard

Hi Folks, The guidance/requirements matrix has now been published and is available here: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=78364 Feel free to use this thread to share your comments on what we've published, any questions you have or examples of your own good practice in this area. Cheers, John.

Richard et al Been reading through your lists with interest. Like you we have tried to create something that is helpful to applicants and our own planning officers. Like yourselves we have included thresholds and criteria so that the amount of information submitted is enough to determine an application without being seen as unnecesary to applicants (on the basis it is easier to "rule by consent rather than dictat!" As we got the majority of our theresholds from national guidance (not just PPGs though) eg Flood (PS25); Heritage (PPs15 & 16, EH charter); Transport Assessment (DoT guidelines); Airport Safeguarding (Airport Operators Association); Biodiversity (Association of Local Govt Ecologists), I really can't see why we had to reinvent the wheel and search for them. I feel, if DCLG do revise the national requirements then putting these already nationally agreed thresholds into a list would be a step in the right direction. The main difference in our List is that ours is designed for the web, makes use of hyperlinks for more information and is set out as a table. In addition as we deal with waste applications, we had to creatively adapt the guidance to include waste recycling. This will hopefully also be rectified in the Review. We originally had no problem with this as we included headings and thresholds from our adopted Waste Local Plan. When the final guidance took away the ability to have additional headings backed by poilcy (in addition to those in the guidance) we were up a creek without a paddle. It was even more gauling to learn 6 months later that this was only to suit the IT requirements of ther Planning Portal! Minerals requirements is only included in the National Requirements as we can't include them in the Local List. There was originally talk of a standard form and local mineral list being introduced but I have now heard that the idea has been dropped. Personally I would rather see a Local list and if that means a standard form (and according to the Regs you cant have one without the other!) so be it. I have also enclosed copies of 2 of the leaflets we published and distributed widely. We also did one for listed buildings (without planning applicaion) and a minerals one. Our reg 3, I think, is similar to a "standard" District application. Be interested to hear comments on our approach especially from other authorities with responsibilty for waste and minerals applications. Regards Laura

I may have missed this but has anyone any cmments on the following: In the agricultural certificates section, you are asked to complete and sign EITHER A or B. A confirms that the land isnt a holding. B says you have to give notice to anyone who is a tenant ( other than the applicant) .If there are no tenants, has anyone ever been requested to complete that section by the LPA , other than to sign it? And if so how would you do it? Also in Q 27 you are asked to sign that you apply for permission to carry out the dvelopment apllied for. The date for that section is specified as "cannot be pre-application". This sounds rather stange to me as it would be very diffcult to sign it AFTER it is submitted? Has anyone got any thoughts on thse matters? Cheers Dave Cookson