When a council insists on a named professional author

A council can lawfully require a report to be written by someone competent to write it. What it cannot do is invent that requirement at the validation desk. Local validation requirements have to be published, they have to be reasonable in relation to the nature and scale of the proposal, they have to relate to something that will be a material consideration, and under the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 they must have appeared on a published local list within the previous two years.

So when an officer says your tree report is not acceptable because the author is not a member of a particular organisation, the first question is which published local list item that requirement comes from. Often the answer is none, and the request falls away once asked.

Where a requirement for a named author is lawful

Three situations where a competence requirement holds up.

The first is statutory. An Environmental Statement under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 must be prepared by competent experts, and the applicant has to provide a statement of the relevant expertise or qualifications. An Environmental Impact Assessment submitted without that statement is incomplete as a matter of law, and the authority is right to say so. Protected species survey work needs a suitably licensed ecologist under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. The biodiversity net gain metric under the Environment Act 2021 regime expects a competent person, with the gain plan approved by the authority. A fire statement at Planning Gateway One, under the Building Safety Act 2022 framework and Article 9A of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, must come from someone with the necessary fire engineering competence. For all of these, a drafted structure is a starting point for that professional rather than a substitute.

The second is where the published local list says so in terms, and the requirement is proportionate. A local list that states acoustic assessments must be prepared by a suitably qualified acoustician is within the test, because an assessment by someone who cannot operate a sound level meter is not capable of being a material consideration.

The third is where a condition on a previous permission or a section 106 obligation names a standard or a class of author. That is a contractual and planning obligation rather than a validation question, and it binds.

Local list wording and its limits

Read the wording carefully, because the distance between two phrasings is the whole argument.

A requirement to follow a standard is straightforward to meet and to evidence. A requirement to hold a particular membership is a different thing, because competence and membership are not the same, and an authority applying the second as though it were the first is going beyond the published test. Say that politely, in writing, and offer the evidence of competence instead.

There is also a timing point worth holding in reserve. If the item being relied on is not on a list published within the previous two years, it cannot be used to refuse validation at all.

Reports where competence is a statutory requirement

Keep the statutory group separate in your own mind, because arguing about them wastes time and damages credibility on the points that are arguable. Environmental statements, protected species work, the biodiversity metric, land contamination investigation to BS 10175 and Gateway One fire statements all carry a competence expectation rooted in legislation or in guidance with statutory force.

On these, the only useful conversation is about what evidences competence. Ask the officer what form of evidence they will accept, provide it in the same email, and move on.

Reports where competence is a policy expectation

The larger group sits at the level of expectation: arboricultural impact assessments, daylight studies, transport assessments, viability appraisals, air quality assessments, play space assessments and construction management plans. Councils usually expect a suitably qualified author for these and professional review is strongly advised, but the requirement comes from the validation list and local policy rather than from a statute.

Here the negotiation is a real one. An architectural practice with a chartered member who has prepared fifty daylight studies may be perfectly competent to prepare the fifty first, and a flat refusal to accept the author is worth challenging. Two of these recur often enough to have their own treatment: play space assessment author competence and who is accountable for a construction management plan.

Challenging a request that goes beyond the published list

Work through it in order, keeping everything in writing.

1. Ask which numbered item on the published local list the request relies on, and ask for the publication date of that list.
2. Ask how the requirement is reasonable in relation to the nature and scale of this proposal, and how the information will be a material consideration.
3. Point to the national guidance on making an application, which tells authorities not to request information that is not necessary and reminds them that local lists must be kept up to date.
4. Offer a proportionate alternative: an author competence statement, a peer review by a professional the authority accepts, or a condition requiring a specialist report before works begin.
5. If the position does not move, escalate once to the development management manager rather than continuing with the validation officer.
6. If it still does not move, decide between submitting the additional report, submitting under protest with a covering letter, or treating the application as valid and pressing for determination.

Most disputes end at step four. The offer of a peer review is the move that resolves the largest number of them, because it gives the officer the comfort they wanted without the applicant paying twice for the same work.

Evidencing competence in a submission

Put a short author statement at the front of every technical document. Four or five lines is enough: name, qualifications, professional membership and grade, relevant experience expressed in projects rather than years, the standard or guidance followed, and a statement that the author has no interest in the outcome beyond the professional appointment.

That paragraph does three jobs. It pre-empts the validation question. It tells the case officer how much weight to give the document. And at appeal it becomes the basis of the author's status as an expert, which matters if the evidence is tested at a hearing or inquiry.

For an environmental statement, the statement of competent experts is a formal requirement, so set it out properly with each topic author named against their chapter.

What to do when an officer rejects an author

Ask for the rejection in writing, with the reason and the list reference. Verbal rejections at the validation stage are common and unhelpful, and an officer asked to put a position in writing will sometimes reconsider it.

Then choose a route rather than drifting. Recommissioning is the expensive option and sometimes the right one, particularly where the report would have been weak anyway. A peer review by an acceptable author usually costs less and takes less time. Submitting under protest preserves the argument, and if the application is later refused on grounds connected to the dispute, the correspondence supports an application for costs at appeal on the basis of unreasonable behaviour.

Where the dispute has already led to a change of consultant, the handover needs managing so the council is not left with two inconsistent documents on file, which we cover in changing consultant mid-application.

Keeping the correspondence

Keep a single file with the validation emails, the dates, the exact wording of each request, the list version you relied on and your responses. It is dull and it is the thing that wins the argument.

Three uses for it. An appeal against non-determination needs a clear record of what was asked and when. A costs application needs evidence of unreasonable behaviour, not a recollection of it. And on the next application to the same authority, the file tells you what that validation team actually asks for, which is worth more than any published list.

Where a review by an accepted professional is the resolution, the professional directory sets out how review and sign-off work. Enter the postcode on the PlanScope home page to see which reports the authority is likely to ask for and which of them carry a professional requirement.

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.