Should You Seek Pre-Application Advice from Your Local Planning Authority?

Pre-application advice has become a common feature in the development process, with local planning authorities (LPAs) actively encouraging early engagement. But is it always worth the time and cost? The answer, as is often the case in planning, depends on a range of factors.

The Case for Frontloading

Paragraphs 40 to 44 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, December 2024) emphasise the value of "frontloading" the planning system. The government promotes early engagement as a way to improve outcomes and efficiency. Good quality pre-application discussions can identify key issues, improve the quality of applications, and reduce delays later on.

But while the intent is sound, pre-application advice is not binding. Local authority advice can be undermined by changes in personnel, local policy shifts, or new material considerations. By the time a planning application is finally determined, which is often months or even a year after the initial advice was given, the policy context may have shifted. This makes early advice potentially out-of-date and, at times, unreliable.

Demonstrating Due Process

The main advantage of obtaining pre-application advice is evidentiary. It shows that the applicant has gone through a due process, engaged with the LPA, and responded to initial feedback. This can be important when justifying the planning approach later or if the application ends up at appeal.

Some LPAs are increasingly strict in their procedural expectations. Without pre-app engagement, certain authorities will refuse to accept any amendments once an application is submitted.

Additionally, entering into a Planning Performance Agreement (PPA), which is often the only route to ensuring timely determination, can be contingent on having gone through a pre-application process. In complex cases, this makes pre-application advice essential.

Time, Money, and Slippage

However, there are significant downsides. The costs of pre-application advice vary considerably between authorities, and can be substantial, particularly for larger schemes. The timeline, too, can become unwieldy. Once engaged in the pre-app process, it’s easy to let it drift. Discussions expand, new issues are raised, and months can slip by before a formal application is ready.

To manage this, developers should approach pre-application advice with a clear scope and timeline. Setting milestones and holding to them ensures that the pre-app process remains a helpful step rather than a source of delay.

Conclusion

Taking pre-application advice from a local planning authority can offer strategic benefits, particularly in terms of smoothing the path toward determination and demonstrating procedural rigour. But it is not a guarantee of future approval, nor is it immune to change. Costs and timing must be carefully managed, and applicants should enter the process with realistic expectations.

At Maddox Planning, we always aim to secure officer commitment to giving timely advice, both through structured meetings and by following up ourselves. Instead of waiting weeks for a formal response letter (which can often be delayed due to officer workloads), we produce and circulate our own meeting notes for the officer’s agreement. This approach helps keep momentum, clarifies key points early, and ensures that discussions are accurately documented for the next stages of the application.

In an ideal system, early engagement would offer clear, dependable outcomes. Until then, pre-application advice should have clear predefined expectations on scope and timings for it to be a useful part of the broader planning strategy.

While the intent of pre-application advice is sound, it is not binding