Skip to content

1,000 comments and counting

by on June 9, 2012

Thanks to you all for continuing to read and respond to my witterings.

There have now been more than 1,000 comments posted excluding my own, which is gratifying as it’s become aprimary communication channel for us.

I do take notice of all your suggestions most of which are added to our list of potential improvements. Being human I take great pleasure in the many positive things you have to say and sometimes umbrage at the negative. Either way though please keep it coming.


  1. John Atkins permalink

    I contacted your so called “service desk” at 15:54 on Wednesday, and am still awaiting a reply
    I did receive an automated message suggesting I contact
    However, this page does not exist, and only generates an “HTTP 404 Not Found” error
    I re-e-mailed you on Thursday and Friday – but received no response to these e-mails at all
    Are you interested in providing a service? or not?

    • PortalDirector permalink

      Hello John,
      I’m sorry to hear of your trouble.
      I will investigate this personally tomorrow morning.

  2. David Curtis permalink

    The opening page of an application asks ‘what do you want to call this job’
    I have made over 200 applications for a national organisation and the local authority have never used my title for the application.
    They call the application by a name they want to use.
    When receiving e-mails from a Local Authority that do not using the name I give it makes it very difficult to find the application in my computer.
    Can Local Authorities by asked to use the applicants job title?

  3. Peter Lutterer permalink

    Below is an email I sent to Stuart Mockford concerning two gripes about Building Regulation applications – thought you might be interested
    Dear Stuart
    I attended the one day conference called “Planning for Growth in the South East” on Tuesday 20th March 2012 where we discussed the difficultly of submitting drawings and documents online for Building Regulation applications.
    At your request I sent you an email on the 22nd March 2012 asking for a way forward with the problem of submitting Building Regulation drawings online rather than submitting multiple paper copies. This is especially frustrating when the same Local Authority already has these drawings submitted via your Planning Portal system for Planning Permission. I was a little disappointed that I did not receive a reply from you on this matter.

    But I have another matter even more frustrating and potentially more difficult to solve.
    I have recently obtained full Planning Permission and submitted a Building Regulation application for an extension to replace an existing conservatory.
    Completely outside the Planning and Building Regulation route is the permission needed from Southern Water to build over or within 3.0 metres of an adopted drain.
    It is possible to be granted full Planning and Building Regulation permissions and then be refused permission to build by Southern Water.
    Surely this should be tied into the Building Regulation permission regime.
    The crux of the problems is that Southern Water are charging quite high fees in order to obtain permission and therefore probably do not want to be under the Local Authority umbrella.
    The standard fee for submitting an application to build over or within 3.0 metres of an adopted drain is £867.60 plus multiple copies of all Building Regulation drawings and documents plus Solicitors fees to draw up the legal documents after permission is granted.

    Since October 2011 the Government changed the law forcing water companies to adopt drains collecting from more than one property. Before this date the responsibility for maintaining these drains fell to the land owner / house holder through which these drains flowed. This was widely published throughout the professions but not generally appreciated by the general public. A conservatory could be erected under Permitted Development and then order to be demolished by the Water Authorities if they decided not to grant permission.

    I would appreciate your comments on both of the above two subjects
    Peter Lutterer, MCIOB

    • PortalDirector permalink

      thanks for getting in touch and for copying your message to me.
      I can understand your frustration.
      It is a fact that the building, planning and water supply processes are all managed seperately and via different permissive regimes and I am aware of the scale of charges applied by the latter.
      The Planning Portal does its best under this constraint to co-locate services and information. I appreciate that it is not ideal.
      We are working with buildings colleagues to extend our reach and are involved in very early discussions to try and help do the same for build overs.
      If I have any news you’ll hear it hear first.

  4. Fran Tanner permalink

    I wonder when a 1-App form will be created specifically for mineral applications.

Leave a Reply to Fran Tanner Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: