Budgeting for the local validation checklist

The national list of application requirements is short and the same everywhere. The local list is where the money goes. Two neighbouring authorities can ask for a different package of supporting documents on the same scheme, and the local validation checklist cost on a minor residential application can exceed the application fee several times over. Any fee proposal written before the local list has been read is a guess.

Read the list, price the list, and put it in front of the client before you quote. That sequence saves more argument than any other habit in practice management.

What the national list requires of every application

The national requirements are set out in the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. For a standard application they amount to the completed form, the correct fee, a location plan and site plan, existing and proposed plans and elevations, the ownership certificates and the agricultural holdings certificate, and a Design and Access Statement where the Order requires one.

The Design and Access Statement trigger is narrower than many people assume. It applies to major development and to development in a conservation area or World Heritage Site where the floorspace created reaches 100 square metres or where one or more dwellings is created. Outside those triggers it is not a national requirement, whatever the local list says about it being good practice.

Nothing on the national list is expensive. The drawings have to be produced anyway, the certificates are administrative and the fee is the fee. The national list has never been the problem.

How councils add local requirements

Section 62(4A) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows an authority to require further information where two conditions are met. The requirement must appear on a list published by the authority, and that list must have been published within the previous two years. And it must be reasonable to think the information will be material to the determination of the application.

The Planning Practice Guidance on making an application reinforces that: local lists should be kept under review, reviewed at least every two years, and should not request information that is not necessary, relevant or material to the application in question.

Local lists are usually organised by trigger, and they typically include items such as:

• Daylight and sunlight assessments above a stated number of storeys or within a stated distance of residential windows.
• Tree surveys where trees are within a stated distance of the works.
• Drainage and surface water details above a stated site area or in a critical drainage area.
• Biodiversity checklists and ecological surveys on any greenfield or garden site.
• Air quality assessments within an Air Quality Management Area.
• Heritage statements for any work in a conservation area, including householder work.
• Noise assessments for any use with plant or extraction.
• Contaminated land screening on any site with a previous non-residential use.

The number of triggers a small scheme fires is routinely four or five, and each one is a separate commission with a separate programme.

Checking the list before you quote

Three steps, each of which takes under half an hour.

1. Download the current list from the authority's website and record the publication or review date. Keep the file with the job, because lists are revised and a dispute six months later is about what the list said when you applied.
2. Go through it line by line against the scheme, marking each item as triggered, not triggered or arguable. Do this on the actual drawings rather than on the description of the project.
3. Email the validation team with the triggered and arguable items, describing the scheme in two lines and asking for confirmation. Not every authority answers, and the ones that do give you a document worth having.

Then build the triggered items into the fee proposal as named lines with named sub-consultants, rather than as an allowance. A client who sees "ecology survey, tree survey, drainage statement" as three priced lines understands the cost. A client who sees "surveys: allowance" assumes you are padding.

Documents that are disproportionate and how to argue it

The statutory test gives you the argument, and it is worth making where the cost is real. A requirement is open to challenge where the information cannot be material to the determination of that application, or where the list has not been reviewed within two years.

Examples that come up repeatedly: a full ecological appraisal demanded for a rear extension over an existing patio, a transport statement for a single dwelling on an existing access, a full heritage statement for replacement windows on an unlisted building at the edge of a conservation area, or a travel plan for a scheme of three houses.

Make the argument in writing, before submission, and in these terms. Identify the list item and its trigger. Explain why the scheme does not engage the planning issue the item exists to address. Offer the proportionate alternative, which is usually a short screening note or a statement within the Planning Statement rather than a full assessment. And ask for written confirmation that the application will be validated on that basis.

Authorities agree more often than practices expect, partly because validation officers would rather settle the point before submission than reject an application and deal with the correspondence.

Costs of an invalid application

An invalid application is not an application. The determination period does not start, no consultation happens, and the file sits in the validation queue until the missing item arrives.

The costs are four. The fee is held or returned and has to be paid again if the application is withdrawn and remade. The missing document has to be commissioned, usually at short notice and therefore at a premium. The programme slips by the time to produce the document plus the time for the authority to look at the application again, which is frequently two to four weeks on its own. And someone in the practice spends unbilled hours managing it.

On a seasonal constraint the damage multiplies. A validation rejection in September that requires a bat emergence survey does not cost three weeks. It costs until the following May, for reasons set out in the ecology survey calendar, and the same logic applies to the hydraulic inputs discussed in flood modelling inputs and what they add to a report.

Fee and programme consequences of resubmission

Where an application is refused rather than invalidated, the free-go provisions in the fees regulations may allow one further application for substantially the same development on the same site within a stated period without a further fee, subject to conditions. Check the current regulations and the authority's interpretation, because the detail matters and the exemption is narrower than its reputation.

Resubmission after refusal is a different calculation from resubmission after invalidity, because the evidence usually has to improve rather than merely arrive. The framework for that decision is set out in resubmitting after a refusal and the cost decision.

Either way, record the cause. A practice that tracks why its applications were rejected or refused, by authority and by reason, learns within a year where its scoping is weak.

Building the list into the fee proposal

Four habits, and they are all administrative rather than clever.

Keep a folder of current validation lists for the authorities you work in, with the review date noted and a diary reminder to re-download annually. Lists change and nobody tells you.

Price the local list as a separate schedule in the fee proposal, with each item marked as confirmed, likely or arguable. The client then sees the risk rather than a single number.

Name who produces each item. Where the answer is a sub-consultant, say so and say what their fee is. Where the answer is a document your practice can draft, say so too, and be clear that specialist reports still need a suitably qualified author.

Build a three to four week buffer into the programme between the fee proposal and submission, purely for the validation items. It will be used.

For the narrative documents in the pack, drafting in-house changes the cost shape without removing the specialist. PlanScope prices a single report at £50, with Professional at £150 per month or £600 per year for unlimited reports and branding removal. See PlanScope pricing for the current tiers, or browse the 66 report types to match the list items to documents.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.