Pre‑Application Advice, Permission in Principle or Full Planning Application?
For small developments in the UK (excluding householder proposals), one of the earliest and most important decisions an applicant must make is which planning route to take. The choice between Pre‑Application Advice, Permission in Principle (PPiP) and a Full Planning Application has significant implications for cost, risk, timescales and professional fees.
This article provides a practical, decision‑focused guide aimed at small developers, landowners and informed individuals. It assumes:
- The proposal is not a householder development
- The maximum pre‑application fee is £1,200
- Pre‑application and PPiP do not require detailed elevations
- A site layout plan is required in all cases
- A full planning application requires full architectural drawings, triggering higher professional costs
And here is my created flow diagram of what is going on.
The focus is not just on planning theory, but on what an average applicant can realistically prepare themselves, when professional input becomes unavoidable, and how to minimise abortive expenditure.
The Three Routes at a Glance
| Route | What it answers | Main risk | Typical cost trigger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre‑Application Advice | Is this acceptable in principle? | Non‑binding | Planning fee (£1,200 max) |
| Permission in Principle | Can this type of development happen here? | Two‑stage process | Limited professional input |
| Full Planning Application | Can I build this exact scheme? | Refusal after full fees | Full architectural package |
1. Pre‑Application Advice: Reducing Risk Before Committing
What Pre‑Application Advice Is For
Pre‑application advice is primarily a risk‑management tool. It allows an applicant to seek an officer view on:
- Acceptability of the use
- Policy compliance
- Constraints (access, flooding, heritage, amenity)
- Information likely to be required at application stage
Crucially, it allows this before committing to a detailed design.
What Is Required
For a small development, pre‑application submissions typically require:
- Site location plan
- Indicative site layout plan
- Brief supporting description
No elevations or detailed architectural drawings are required.
What an Average Applicant Can Do Themselves
Many applicants can competently prepare pre‑application material without an architect by:
- Using an Ordnance Survey base
- Producing a clear block layout showing:
- Building footprint(s)
- Access points
- Parking
- Relationship to boundaries
Modern tools such as QGIS, SketchUp or simple CAD software are often sufficient, provided the output is clear, scaled and legible.
When Professional Help Is Helpful (but not essential)
Light‑touch professional input may be worthwhile where:
- Access is constrained
- Density is borderline
- The proposal is close to sensitive boundaries
This often involves a few hours of architect or planning consultant time, rather than a full commission.
Pros and Cons
Advantages
- Lowest design cost exposure
- Early identification of show‑stoppers
- Written advice that can inform later applications
Limitations
- Advice is not binding
- Adds an extra step to the programme
When Pre‑Application Is the Sensible First Step
Pre‑application advice is usually the best starting point where:
- Policy position is unclear
- The use is potentially contentious
- Neighbour or access impacts are likely
- The applicant wants to avoid abortive design fees
2. Permission in Principle (PPiP): Certainty Without Full Design
What PPiP Is For
Permission in Principle separates the question of whether development is acceptable from what it will look like.
It establishes agreement on:
- The principle of the use
- The amount of development
- The location of development
- Access in principle
Detailed design matters are dealt with later through an Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions.
What Is Required
A PPiP application typically requires:
- Red‑line boundary plan
- Indicative site layout
- Supporting planning statement
Again, no elevations or architectural detailing are required at this stage.
What an Average Applicant Can Do Themselves
Many applicants can prepare PPiP submissions without an architect by:
- Producing a clear site layout
- Writing a structured planning statement referencing:
- Local Development Plan policies
- Access arrangements
- Scale and use
This is particularly realistic where the site:
- Is relatively unconstrained
- Has a clear policy context
- Is not proposing a novel or sensitive use
When Professional Input Becomes Sensible
Some applicants still choose limited professional assistance for:
- Layout refinement
- Policy interpretation
- Anticipating issues at the later approval stage
This is usually significantly cheaper than a full planning design package.
Pros and Cons
Advantages
- Locks in development value and principle
- Avoids upfront elevation and design costs
- Useful for land sale or financing
Limitations
- Two‑stage consent process
- Cannot start development without further approval
When PPiP Is the Best Option
PPiP is particularly well‑suited where:
- The applicant wants certainty before spending on design
- Land value depends on planning status
- The proposal is policy‑compliant but design‑led costs are significant
3. Full Planning Application: One Stage, Highest Commitment
What a Full Application Is For
A full planning application seeks consent for the exact development proposed, including:
- Layout
- Scale
- Appearance
- Detailed design
If approved, it usually allows development to commence (subject to conditions).
What Is Required
A full application requires:
- Detailed site layout
- Floor plans
- Elevations
- Sections
- Design and Access Statement
- Often supporting technical reports
At this point, professional architectural input is effectively unavoidable.
Why the Cost Step‑Change Occurs
The major increase in cost is not the planning fee itself, but:
- Time spent developing coordinated drawings
- Design revisions to address planning risk
- Integration of access, parking, servicing and amenity standards
This pushes the applicant into a full professional commission, even for small developments.
Pros and Cons
Advantages
- Single application
- Fastest route to construction if approved
Limitations
- Highest upfront cost
- Greatest abortive risk if refused
When Full Planning Makes Sense
A full application is usually appropriate where:
- Policy position is clear and supportive
- Similar developments have already been approved nearby
- The applicant is ready to build
- The budget can absorb design risk
Indicative Cost Comparison
| Route | Typical drawings | Architect involvement | Typical total cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pre‑Application | Site layout only | Optional | £0 – £2,500 |
| PPiP | Layout + statement | Optional | £1,000 – £4,000 |
| Full Planning | Full plans & elevations | Essential | £5,000 – £15,000+ |
Figures are indicative and vary by complexity and location.
A Practical Decision Rule
Many experienced applicants follow a simple logic:
- Uncertain principle → Pre‑Application Advice
- Certain principle, uncertain design → Permission in Principle
- Certain principle and design → Full Planning Application
Understanding where your proposal sits in this sequence can save thousands of pounds in unnecessary professional fees and reduce the risk of abortive work.
Conclusion
For small developments in the UK, the choice of planning route is fundamentally a cost‑risk decision, not just a procedural one. Pre‑application advice and Permission in Principle exist specifically to allow applicants to test acceptability before committing to expensive architectural design.
Taking the right route at the right time can:
- Reduce financial risk
- Improve application quality
- Shorten overall project timescales
The key is aligning the planning route with the level of certainty you already have, and the level of cost you are prepared to expose at each stage.