One of the most common misconceptions about planning applications is that success hinges almost entirely on the architect and the design. While good design is fundamental, in reality most planning applications rely just as heavily on early analysis, supporting technical information, and how well potential risks are anticipated and managed.
Delays are rarely caused by a single issue. More often, they result from a failure to identify constraints early, commission the right advice at the right time, or take a strategic view of how a proposal will be assessed, not just validated.
This article isn’t intended to be an exhaustive checklist. Instead, it highlights some of the key areas that are worth thinking about early, and how a more holistic approach can help de-risk the planning process and avoid unnecessary delay.
Some surveys can only be undertaken at specific times of the year. Bat and Great Crested Newt surveys are obvious examples, with seasonal windows that can have a direct impact on when an application can realistically be submitted.
Understanding these constraints early is essential. In some cases, ecological surveys need to be commissioned at the very outset of a project, even before the design has progressed too far. That, however, requires a degree of confidence in the feasibility of the scheme, so that time and money are not spent on reports that ultimately prove unnecessary.
This is where early professional advice is invaluable, helping to balance risk, cost, and programme from the outset.
At a basic but critical level, a measured dimensional survey should always include neighbouring properties, particularly the position of adjacent windows and trees on neighbouring land.
Where impacts are likely, it can be sensible to obtain advice at an early stage. A developable model can be prepared that establishes a realistic building envelope, showing what could be accommodated on the site without unduly affecting neighbouring properties in planning terms.
While rights of light is not itself a planning matter, early assessment can also identify any separate legal risk outside the planning process. Understanding this risk early helps avoid situations where a scheme secures planning consent but encounters difficulties later.
In practice, we find it far more effective to design within known parameters from the outset, rather than designing first and testing compliance afterwards.
Trees are a frequent cause of delay, particularly those located on neighbouring land. Root protection areas can significantly influence what can and cannot be built, even where trees sit outside the application site.
Trees within the site itself are equally important, especially where they are:
Questions such as whether a tree can be removed, retained, or built near should be established early. If this isn’t clarified at the outset, designs can progress too far before a fundamental constraint is identified, often leading to abortive work.
Early engagement with neighbours can be extremely valuable. Informal consultation allows concerns to be identified early and, where possible, addressed through design changes or clearly explained within the planning submission itself.
In some areas, local residents’ groups also play a significant role. In places such as the St John’s Wood Conservation Area, The St John’s Wood Society are formally consulted on planning applications and publish their own design guidance.
Understanding this guidance early helps ensure proposals respond to local expectations. Where schemes depart from it, the application should clearly set out why the proposals are still reasonable and appropriate, rather than appearing unconsidered.
Where schemes are likely to be reported to planning committee, or where objections are anticipated, early engagement can significantly reduce risk.
In these situations, CGIs and visualisations are often particularly effective. They help people understand what is actually being proposed, reducing uncertainty, perceived scale, and fear of the unknown.
Early engagement also allows likely objections to be anticipated and addressed through supporting statements. Should a scheme need to progress to appeal, being able to demonstrate meaningful engagement and attempts to mitigate concerns can materially strengthen the overall case.
While local authority websites set out the documents required to validate an application, successful planning is about far more than working through a checklist.
A strong planning submission takes a holistic view, bringing drawings and technical reports together into a coherent narrative. Where reports identify constraints or potential impacts, the application should clearly demonstrate how these have been:
Submitting multiple standalone reports without showing how their conclusions have informed the proposals often leads to requests for further information and delay.
On some projects, detailed investigations are required simply to validate an application. Basement extensions are a good example, often requiring contamination surveys, soil investigations, and basement impact assessments.
These studies are time-consuming and expensive. In such cases, it is often sensible to seek pre-application advice first, allowing the principle of the proposal to be tested before committing to significant expenditure.
Pre-app discussions can also help ensure that, once reports are commissioned, the scheme has evolved sufficiently to avoid repeated updates and amendments as the design changes.
Early site appraisal is also critical. In London, many sites require an unexploded ordnance (UXO) assessment to be submitted, or even carried out before intrusive ground investigations can take place. These steps take time and must be factored into the programme from the outset.
For many projects, an application will run more smoothly if pre-application advice has been sought. While this may not be necessary for simple schemes, the time invested upfront often pays dividends later.
On larger or more complex projects, a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA) can be particularly effective. PPAs allow schemes to evolve collaboratively with the planning authority and often involve councillors, local groups, and design review panels. By the time an application is submitted, most key issues have already been identified and addressed.
Good planning starts with early appraisal and a thorough feasibility study. Understanding site-specific constraints, looking at precedents, reviewing planning policy, identifying time-critical surveys, and sequencing consultant input correctly puts a project on a far surer footing.
Whether through pre-application advice or a Planning Performance Agreement, engaging early allows risk to be managed rather than reacted to. By the time a planning application is submitted, the aim should be confidence, that the proposals are compliant, justified, and robustly supported.
BA (Hons), Dip Arch, RIBA
Director
BA (Hons), Dip Arch, RIBA
Director
BA (Hons), Dip Arch, RIBA
Director