Returning Applications - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

We have had similar debates but this was discussed in DC Forum in Planning a while ago and JH advised that the LPA has a statutory duty to determine a valid planning application so should not return it. Assuming this situation generally only happens with householders then I would say it's good customer service to ensure that the applicant either ends up with a planning permission or an LDC without paying more than £150. If you are determining a planning application for something that is PD then the fact that it is PD is a significant material consideration and might well outweigh any policy objections. Taking such an approach would ensure that such apps would seldom be refused.

Probably a daft question ... but why is the fact that it is PD not being picked up at the validation stage?

It's a good question and I would expect that it often is picked up at validation stage if not at preapp stage. But where they do slip through in my view it will be down to lack of resources and the complexity of the PD regs.

Thanks for your responses. It's not a daft question Michael, and it's one that i've asked myself. I think that most are getting picked up but a few still slip through the net and as Nick says, i think it's down to the complexity of the PD regs and the technical guidance. In terms of us having a statutory duty to determine a valid planning application can a proposal be regarded as a valid application if it doesn't require planning permission?

Daniel - I think your last sentence is a good point: can you validly apply for planning permission for something that does not require planning permission? I would have thought not - there are many things that do not require planning permission, and simply putting it on a planning form does not mean a valid application has been submitted (all other validation requirements being met of course). A clear example would be where someone has applied for conservation area consent for a site not in a conservation area - it needs to be declared invalid (or whatever term seems best) on the grounds that it is not legally required.

My advice would be as follows: If works are not development at all and therefore do not require planning permission then a valid planning application cannot be made for those works. However, if the works are "permitted development" then they are nevertheless development and so require planning permission. It makes most sense for the applicant to rely on the 'deemed' planning permission granted by the GPDO but that does not prevent him/her applying for formal planning permission from the LPA. For example there may be so much uncertainty over whether certain works are PD that the applicant doesn't want to bother with the time and fee for an LDC and decides to put in for planning permission instead. Even if it turns out it was PD planning permission can be granted. Where PD rights have been removed an applicant may prefer to submit a free planning application rather than pay for an LDC. In circumstances where the works are obviously PD and the applicant has submitted a planning application in error you might advise him/her to withdraw it and submit an LDC instead, but only if you are willing to return the fee! I mentioned before that something being PD is a significiant material consideration in determining a planning application, but forgot to say that it will also have a bearing on how reasonable any conditions are. Bear in mind that as in all things planning/legal-related there is unlikely to be a definitively 'right' answer to these questions but the above seems most pragmatic and robust to me. I'm sure that in most cases no-one would bat an eye if you returned the application or converted it to an LDC or whatever. Perhaps you might give the applicant a choice?