PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE VS FULL PLANNING PERMISSION
Which planning route should you use for a residential development site?
If you are considering developing land for housing, you may have the option of applying for Permission in Principle (PiP) or proceeding directly with a full planning application.
Both can form part of the route towards securing planning permission, but they do different things.
Permission in Principle separates the question of whether development is acceptable in principle from the detailed design and technical matters.
A full planning application considers the detailed development proposal from the outset.
The right approach depends on the site, the planning risk, how much certainty you need and how much work it makes sense to undertake before the principle of development has been established.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE AND FULL PLANNING PERMISSION?
The simplest distinction is:
Permission in Principle
→ Is this location suitable in principle for this type and amount of housing-led development?
Full planning application
→ Is this particular development proposal acceptable?
At Permission in Principle stage, the matters considered are limited to:
Location
Land use
Amount of development
If PiP is granted, a subsequent Technical Details Consent is required before the development can proceed.
A full planning application deals with the detailed proposal in one planning process.
WHAT DOES A FULL PLANNING APPLICATION CONSIDER?
A full application normally provides considerably more information about the proposed development.
Depending on the site and proposal, this might include:
Site layout
Building design
Scale and appearance
Access
Parking
Landscaping
Neighbour relationships
Trees
Ecology
Flood risk
Drainage
Heritage
Other relevant technical matters
The application therefore asks the planning authority to consider both the principle and detail of the development.
If permission is granted, there may still be planning conditions and other requirements to address, but a separate Technical Details Consent application is not required in the way it is following PiP.
IS PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE THE SAME AS PLANNING PERMISSION?
Not by itself.
A grant of Permission in Principle establishes the principle of the development specified by that permission.
But development cannot proceed solely on the basis of PiP.
A subsequent application for Technical Details Consent is required.
It is the combination of Permission in Principle and Technical Details Consent that enables the development to proceed through this route.
IS PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE CHEAPER THAN A FULL PLANNING APPLICATION?
It can involve less expenditure at the initial stage, but that is not the same as saying the overall development process will necessarily be cheaper.
With a full planning application, design and technical work may need to be undertaken before the planning authority decides whether the development should be permitted.
With PiP, some of that expenditure can potentially be deferred until the principle has been established.
For an uncertain site, this can be commercially significant.
Instead of spending heavily answering detailed questions before knowing whether housing is acceptable at all, the planning process can be approached in stages.
However, if PiP is granted and the project proceeds, the detailed work required for Technical Details Consent still needs to be undertaken.
WHEN IS PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE BETTER THAN A FULL APPLICATION?
PiP can be particularly useful where the main uncertainty is the principle of residential development.
Imagine a landowner has a small parcel of land on the edge of a village.
The fundamental question may be:
Will the planning authority accept housing on this land?
If that question is genuinely uncertain, spending significant money immediately developing a detailed architectural scheme and commissioning numerous technical reports may expose the landowner to unnecessary risk.
Where the site and development meet the requirements of the PiP route, establishing the principle first may be worth considering.
WHEN IS A FULL PLANNING APPLICATION BETTER?
A full application may be preferable where the planning position is reasonably understood and the client wants to obtain a detailed permission in one process.
For example:
The principle of residential development is already established
The site is a straightforward infill opportunity
The proposed development is relatively simple
Detailed design is important to demonstrating why the proposal is acceptable
The client intends to build the development
There is little advantage in splitting the process into two stages
If you already know what you want to build and are reasonably confident in the planning principle, PiP may simply introduce an additional stage.
WHICH ROUTE IS BETTER FOR A GARDEN PLOT?
It depends on the planning issue.
If a large side garden sits within an established residential area and the principle of another dwelling is relatively straightforward, it may make sense to prepare a well-designed full application.
If the garden forms a more unusual backland or edge-of-settlement opportunity where the principle itself is uncertain, there may be greater value in considering whether PiP provides an appropriate way of testing that principle.
But eligibility is only part of the decision.
The question should remain:
What planning uncertainty are we trying to resolve?
WHICH ROUTE IS BETTER FOR A PADDOCK OR FIELD?
Again, the location and policy position matter more than the description of the land.
A paddock adjoining a village may have a very different planning position from an isolated field in open countryside.
Where a small parcel of land has a credible residential planning case but the principle remains uncertain, PiP may provide a useful route for testing that case without first developing a detailed housing scheme.
But PiP does not bypass planning policy.
If residential development is fundamentally unacceptable in the location, using a different application type does not make that conflict disappear.
DO I NEED AN ARCHITECT FOR PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE?
A fully developed architectural scheme is not necessarily required at PiP stage.
However, some architectural and development thinking can still be extremely valuable.
If you are seeking permission in principle for several homes, for example, you should have a reasonable understanding that those homes could actually be accommodated on the site.
That means considering matters such as:
Site dimensions
Access
Relationship with existing properties
Development pattern
Trees
Topography
Parking
Potential layout
PiP should not become an exercise in choosing the largest number of houses that appears possible on paper.
The proposed amount of development should be credible and capable of informing a deliverable scheme later.
DOES PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE MAKE LAND MORE VALUABLE?
Potentially.
Planning uncertainty affects development land value.
Land where residential development is purely speculative is different from land where the principle of a defined amount of housing development has been established.
PiP may therefore provide useful additional planning certainty to a prospective purchaser.
However, a site with PiP still requires Technical Details Consent.
A developer will take account of the remaining:
Planning risk
Design work
Technical work
Infrastructure
Development costs
Time
A detailed planning permission may therefore provide a different level of certainty.
Neither has a standard or guaranteed effect on land value.
WHICH IS BETTER IF I WANT TO SELL MY LAND?
This depends on how far through the planning process it makes commercial sense to take the site.
Broadly, a landowner could consider selling:
Without planning certainty
The purchaser takes substantial planning risk.
With Permission in Principle
The principle of the specified development has been established, but detailed consent remains outstanding.
With full planning permission
A much more developed planning proposition can be offered to the market.
Each stage involves a different balance between:
Cost + time + planning risk + potential land value
Taking the site further through planning may create additional value, but the additional value needs to justify the cost and risk involved.
DOES PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE REQUIRE FEWER REPORTS?
At the initial PiP stage, the planning authority is considering a narrower range of matters than it would through a detailed planning application.
That can mean substantially less detailed information is required at the first stage.
However, technical constraints should not simply be ignored.
Suppose a site appears suitable for five houses in principle but has an access, flood risk or ecology issue that could fundamentally prevent a workable development.
Understanding that issue before pursuing PiP could be extremely important.
There is a difference between:
not needing to resolve every technical detail yet
and
not understanding whether the site is actually deliverable.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE?
If PiP is granted, the next planning stage is Technical Details Consent.
This is where the detailed development proposal is considered.
The work may involve architectural design and relevant technical information addressing matters such as access, drainage, ecology, trees, landscaping and other site-specific issues.
The objective is to turn the development established in principle into an acceptable and deliverable detailed proposal.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER FULL PLANNING PERMISSION?
If full permission is granted, there may still be work required before construction begins.
This can include satisfying planning conditions, dealing with legal obligations where applicable, progressing Building Regulations and completing the technical design.
Planning permission should therefore not be confused with being immediately ready to build.
But unlike PiP, there is not a subsequent Technical Details Consent stage required to establish the detailed planning permission.
CAN I SWITCH FROM PERMISSION IN PRINCIPLE TO A FULL APPLICATION?
PiP is a planning strategy, not a requirement to pursue every site through that route.
The appropriate approach should be considered before significant expenditure is incurred.
If feasibility work demonstrates that the development principle is relatively strong and a detailed proposal can be prepared efficiently, proceeding with a full application may provide better value.
Equally, where the principle remains the major uncertainty, PiP may deserve consideration.
The application type should follow the planning problem you are trying to solve.
HOW DO I DECIDE WHICH ROUTE TO USE?
A useful decision process is:
1. Is the proposal eligible for Permission in Principle?
If not, another planning route will be required.
2. How uncertain is the principle of development?
If this is the major risk, PiP may have greater strategic value.
3. How much detailed work is required before that risk can be tested?
Consider architecture and specialist consultants.
4. Are there technical constraints that need understanding regardless?
Do not defer an issue capable of fundamentally undermining the development.
5. What does the client ultimately want?
Selling land, establishing value and building the development may justify different levels of planning certainty.
6. What additional certainty is worth paying for now?
This is ultimately a commercial as well as planning decision.
SWAP VIEW
The advantage of Permission in Principle is not simply that it can require less work at the beginning.
Its real value is the ability to separate two different risks:
Should this land be developed for housing?
and
Is this particular detailed housing scheme acceptable?
On some sites, there is little reason to separate them. A full planning application may be the quickest and most efficient route to a useful consent.
On others — particularly small sites where the principle of residential development is genuinely uncertain — it can make little commercial sense to spend heavily on detailed architecture and technical reports before the fundamental planning question has been answered.
We therefore choose the planning route by looking at risk, expenditure and the client's objective, rather than automatically selecting the cheapest application or the one requiring the least information.
NOT SURE WHICH PLANNING ROUTE TO USE?
If you have a site with potential for residential development, SWAP can assess whether Permission in Principle or a full planning application is likely to provide the more appropriate route.
We can review the planning position, development capacity and principal constraints, identify the main planning risks and advise on a proportionate strategy for progressing the site.
Send us the site address or location, a plan if you have one, and a brief description of what you're considering.