Local validation lists: what a council can lawfully require

A council can only insist on a document for validation if that local validation list requirement appears on a list the authority has published, and published recently. Section 62 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, makes a local requirement unenforceable unless it is set out in a list published by the authority within the previous two years. That is the ground on which an unreasonable request is resisted, and it works, because an out-of-date list is a weak place for a validation officer to stand.

The national requirements are different. Those cannot be waived by anyone.

Where the power to set a local list comes from

Validation requirements come in two tiers. The national requirements are set by the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 and the national application form: the completed form, the plans and drawings necessary to describe the development, the ownership certificates and agricultural holdings certificate, the design and access statement where one is required, and the correct fee.

Local requirements sit on top. The authority may require particulars or evidence it reasonably needs to determine the application, provided the requirement is on its published local list. That is the statutory hook, and the published list is the instrument.

Guidance adds two tests that are quoted in almost every validation dispute. The information sought must be reasonable having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development, and it must be about a matter it is reasonable to think will be a material consideration in determining the application. Both tests are applied to the request as made, on this application, not to the category in general.

The two year review requirement

The two year point is the sharpest tool an applicant has. A local requirement does not bite unless it appears on a list published no earlier than two years before the application is made.

So the first step in any validation dispute is to find the list, check the date on it, and check that the document being demanded is actually on it. Lists are often buried, sometimes dated by a review that never changed the content, and occasionally superseded by a newer version that quietly dropped the item in question.

Where the list is out of date, say so in writing, cite the statutory position, and ask the authority to validate. Where the item is simply not on the list at all, the request has no basis regardless of the date.

Tests of reasonableness and proportionality

Assume the list is current and the item is on it. The argument then moves to proportionality, and it is won with facts about the site rather than with assertions about cost.

The questions that carry weight:

1. What is the scale of the development, and does the requirement match it? A tree survey for a single-storey rear extension forty metres from the nearest tree is not proportionate.
2. Is the matter capable of being a material consideration here? A requirement that assumes a constraint the site does not have fails this test.
3. Has the information already been supplied in another form? Duplication is a common complaint and an easy one to answer.
4. Could the matter be dealt with by condition instead? Validation is not the stage for information that only matters to implementation.
5. Does the authority's own list say the requirement applies only in defined circumstances? Lists often carry thresholds that validation officers overlook.

Point five produces more successful challenges than any other. Most local lists are written with triggers attached, and the request frequently arrives without anyone checking whether the trigger is met.

Challenging a requirement on a local list

There is no statutory appeal against non-validation, which is the uncomfortable part. The practical escalation runs in this order.

Write to the validation officer setting out, item by item, why the requirement does not apply, with the list and its date attached and the guidance tests quoted. Keep it short and factual. If that fails, escalate to the development management manager rather than arguing with the same officer twice. If that fails, use the council's formal complaints procedure, which creates a record and sometimes produces a review.

Beyond that the options narrow to judicial review, which is expensive and rarely proportionate for one document, or to supplying the document under protest. A fourth route exists where the authority has in substance refused to determine a complete application: the non-determination appeal. It is awkward, because the statutory period runs from validation, so the argument becomes whether the application should have been valid all along. Take advice before relying on it.

The pragmatic answer, more often than not, is to provide a short note explaining why the full document is unnecessary, offering the specific information the officer actually needs. Validation teams accept proportionate substitutes more readily than people expect.

National requirements that cannot be waived

No negotiation is available on the national list. An application without the correct fee, without ownership certificates, or without plans sufficient to identify the development is not a valid application, and the authority is right to return it.

Two of these cause most problems. Ownership certificates have to be correct, with the right certificate signed and notices served where the land is not all yours, and a wrong certificate is a criminal matter as well as a validation defect. And the description of development has to match what the drawings show, because the description is what gets permitted.

Where a design and access statement is required by the Order, it is a national requirement for those categories of application rather than a local one. A Design and Access Statement that addresses use, amount, layout, scale, landscaping, appearance and access, plus the access considerations the Order lists, meets the requirement without padding.

Getting a pre-validation check

Several authorities offer a pre-validation or pre-submission check, sometimes for a fee, sometimes as part of a pre-application service. For an unusual application or a new client site it is worth taking, because it converts a validation argument into a list agreed in advance.

Ask for the agreement in writing and keep it. A validation officer working from a different understanding three weeks later will accept an email from a colleague far more readily than a recollection of a phone call.

Where the site has local constraints, the local list is where those surface, which is why checking surface water designations matters, as our note on checking critical drainage areas sets out, and why a neighbourhood plan covering the site can add requirements that the district list does not mention.

When to refuse to supply a document

Refuse when the requirement is not on a current list, when the trigger in the list is not met, when the document could only be relevant to a constraint the site does not have, or when the matter is plainly one for a condition. Say which of those applies and offer the alternative.

Supply the document when the matter is contentious on the merits, when the cost is modest against the risk of delay, or when the information will be needed at determination anyway. A fortnight of correspondence over a report that costs less than the delay is a poor trade, and officers remember which agents pick that fight on every application.

Keep a record of what each authority has required and when, because the pattern across a dozen applications is the most useful evidence you will ever have in a validation argument. Browse the report types to see what each document actually contains before deciding whether a request is proportionate.

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.