Pre-application discussion
A local authority perspective
WTPD Conference – 10 November 2011
Gideon Brand
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
•
The context
Purpose of pre-application discussion
What makes an application complete?
Implications of incomplete submission
Conclusion
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
THE CONTEXT
•
•
•
•
Planning law eg LUPO, PAJA etc sets procedural requirements
Procedural flaw / compliance failure can lead to judicial review
CoCT 9 864 land use submissions in 2010/11 (14 224 in 2006/07)
Simplified application process
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-submission discussion
Submission
Advertising / circulation (complete application)
Technical assessment
Decision, notification & appeal
Process can be very lengthy,
complicated & costly
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
PURPOSE OF PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSION
•
•
•
•
•
•

Information gathering
Clarification of proposal
Preliminary discussion / advice re conceptual / substantive matters
Clarification of likely advertising / consultation requirements
Confirmation of procedural / compliance / submission
requirements (to enable complete submission)
Early flagging of any technical issues / problems
However, still applicant’s
responsibility to do homework
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
WHAT MAKES AN APPLICATION COMPLETE?
•
•
City policy not to accept incomplete applications
Basic submission requirements include
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Completed / signed forms
Application / advertising fee
Power of attorney (& co resolution)
Copy of title deed
Conveyancer’s certificate
Subdivision / site development / layout plan
Proper motivation
Locality plan
Neighbour / HOA’s consent
Copy of impact assessments etc
14 days to check completeness (R5, PN1050/88)
Where no agreement within 6 weeks, appeal right to competent
authority (R17, PN1050/88)
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
IMPLICATIONS OF INCOMPLETE SUBMISSION
•
•
•
Additional info requested 38% of cases 2010/11 (41% last 6 months)
At least 40% of incompleteness due to basic requirements not met
Typical flaws, omissions & errors
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Title deed incorrect / inadequate conveyancer’s cert
Missing / incorrect neighbour’s consent
POA incorrect
Insufficient motivation
Plans inadequate / unclear
Processing unable to commence
without outstanding info = inevitable delays
Applicant will receive 14 day letter – either submit or extension
If no response, file closed
Many incomplete applications for months in the system = energy
diverted away from processing complete applications
Pre-application discussion – A local authority perspective
CONCLUSIONS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
More multi-disciplinary pre-app meetings on large / complex /
contentious proposals encouraged (or enforced?)
Applicant in any case to first obtain basic info / requirements
Pre-app discussions to be recorded
Incomplete submissions should be minimised
Improved quality applications contribute to
shorter / more efficient processes
Officials to be accessible, facilitative & communicate
City committed to greater efficiency, shorter
processes, continuous improvement and also training
Thank you