Online planning application growth 2005 – 2012
Amidst all the doom and gloom, a ray of sunshine.
As this graph clearly shows the number of online submissions continues to grow year on year.
Recent Comments
Maggie Kirby on Planning permission and acquir… neil harriosn on Planning permission and acquir… RHODES on Planning permission and acquir… kirstymatthewson on Planning permission and acquir… kirstymatthewson on Planning permission and acquir… Darren Gladwin on Planning permission and acquir… Darren gladwin on Planning permission and acquir…
very good but how many are just repeats?
How many get approved?
I’m afraid we’ve no influence there but I can say that applications are more likely to be right first time if submitted via the Portal. That ought to go some way to reduce resubmissions!
I’ve been using it for a long while now. Love it!
The recent changes especially the documents page where you can upload in one go is so much easier and quicker but would it be possible to make the ‘material’s’ page the same?
Agreed, I love the portal applications too. Saves so much money in A1 paper.
Also agreed, the materials page is the biggest pain for me. Could it include a tick box for ‘To Match Existing’, and i don’t understand why you have to go to a seperate screen for each material. Surely it could just be text boxes on the same page???
We plan to make the changes you refer to, as part of our next series of updates. Watch this space for more info.
I have been using the system since it became available. Agree with the comments on the materials page it could be simplified just like the documents page.
Agree with the above but could you also fix another glitch – in the drop down box to select “Mr / Mrs” etc in the applicants details, there is the choice to select “Mr & Mrs” but this is not available later for the ownership and agricultural forms so you have to choose “Mr” and add “& Mrs” in front of their name which is a bit daft.
Also the lack of any options for Mr & Ms, Mr & Mr, and Ms & Ms has still not been addressed. Surely this is prejudicial to unmarried and same sex couples. Isn’t it against government non-discrimination policies?
Michael,
I completely support your view.
Our problem is as always funding, with only a finite amount to go around we have to prioritise those that have the most impact for the greatest number of customers, and we make the choices based on feedback.
We are now planning our next phase of updates and I hope we’ll be in a position to make the changes soon.