Summary
Some local planning authorities are submitting a single semicolon-separated URL covering all local-plan datasets without populating conditional fields such as:
minerals-and-waste-planning-authoritiesdocument-count
These fields are not always required. However, LPAs may not realise they are expected when the submitted data includes mineral or waste plans.
The submission can still be added, but this often requires follow-up communication to explain that the relevant mineral and waste plan fields should also be provided. This creates avoidable resubmissions and support work.
Current behaviour
The Check Planning Data service accepts the submission without clearly indicating that additional conditional fields may be relevant.
Users may therefore assume that a submission containing mineral or waste plans is complete, even when the associated conditional fields have not been populated.
Proposed improvement
Make it clearer when the conditional fields are required and how they relate to mineral and waste plans.
Where the service detects that a submission may contain a mineral or waste plan, it should display a non-blocking warning or hint explaining that the user may need to provide:
minerals-and-waste-planning-authoritiesdocument-count
The warning should help users understand why these fields may be expected without incorrectly implying that they are mandatory for every local-plan submission.
Suggested warning copy
This submission may include a mineral or waste plan. Check whether you need to provide minerals-and-waste-planning-authorities and document-count for this data.
The warning could also link to guidance explaining:
- when each conditional field is required;
- how the fields relate to mineral and waste plans;
- how to populate them when a single URL covers multiple plan datasets.
Acceptance criteria
- Guidance clearly explains when
minerals-and-waste-planning-authorities and document-count are expected.
- The submission journey identifies data that appears to include a mineral or waste plan.
- A clear, non-blocking warning or hint is shown when the relevant conditional fields are missing.
- The warning does not appear for submissions where there is no indication of a mineral or waste plan.
- Users can access further guidance from the warning.
- Existing valid submissions are not blocked by this change.
Expected outcome
LPAs are more likely to provide the relevant conditional fields on their first submission, reducing follow-up explanations, corrections and resubmissions.
Summary
Some local planning authorities are submitting a single semicolon-separated URL covering all local-plan datasets without populating conditional fields such as:
minerals-and-waste-planning-authoritiesdocument-countThese fields are not always required. However, LPAs may not realise they are expected when the submitted data includes mineral or waste plans.
The submission can still be added, but this often requires follow-up communication to explain that the relevant mineral and waste plan fields should also be provided. This creates avoidable resubmissions and support work.
Current behaviour
The Check Planning Data service accepts the submission without clearly indicating that additional conditional fields may be relevant.
Users may therefore assume that a submission containing mineral or waste plans is complete, even when the associated conditional fields have not been populated.
Proposed improvement
Make it clearer when the conditional fields are required and how they relate to mineral and waste plans.
Where the service detects that a submission may contain a mineral or waste plan, it should display a non-blocking warning or hint explaining that the user may need to provide:
minerals-and-waste-planning-authoritiesdocument-countThe warning should help users understand why these fields may be expected without incorrectly implying that they are mandatory for every local-plan submission.
Suggested warning copy
The warning could also link to guidance explaining:
Acceptance criteria
minerals-and-waste-planning-authoritiesanddocument-countare expected.Expected outcome
LPAs are more likely to provide the relevant conditional fields on their first submission, reducing follow-up explanations, corrections and resubmissions.