Professional planning submission tools for architects

Quick answer
Professional planning submission tools are built around repeat submissions. They help practices keep project data, documents, and boundary information consistent across multiple applications, contributors, and deadlines. The aim is a controlled submission workflow that reduces retyping, avoids internal mismatches, and makes pre-submission checking easier.

Written by
Lapworth Architects
Professionally reviewed by
Alan Pritchard RIBA

Introduction

Architects can submit planning applications through more than one route. The route itself is rarely the real issue. What matters is whether the workflow matches how a practice actually operates.

Occasional submitters typically need a straightforward path through the basics. Practices submitting regularly need something different: repeatable steps, consistent outputs, and a way to keep information aligned across a team. This article sets out, in practical terms, what professional planning submission tools are designed to support and how to choose an approach that fits your workload.

What general-purpose submission routes are designed to do

General-purpose submission routes prioritise broad accessibility. They are built to accommodate many application types and many user profiles. That is useful, and it is often sufficient for one-off work.

In practice teams, the pressure tends to come from repetition and handover rather than from any single form. When a practice is carrying several live submissions, small inconsistencies compound. The result is usually rework inside the practice, not a single dramatic failure.

Where friction tends to show up in practice workflows

Friction is usually operational. It appears when the same information has to be re-entered across projects, when multiple people produce documents in different formats, or when boundary information and written descriptions drift apart during revisions.

Common pressure points include:

• Managing consistency across a team and across multiple applications
• Reusing known data without retyping it each time
• Keeping drawings, certificates, and supporting documents in step with the application description
• Running a reliable pre-submission alignment check without turning it into a separate project

What professional planning submission tools are designed to support

Professional tools are usually designed around repeat submissions and practice-wide consistency. The exact features vary, but the underlying intent is similar: reduce duplication and make it easier to keep submission inputs aligned.

Typical support areas include:

• Structured workflows, so the same steps happen each time
• Reusable project data, to reduce retyping and reduce drift
• Pre-submission checks, so common inconsistencies are caught before submission
• Mapping support, often including Ordnance Survey mapping, to help with boundary accuracy and presentation
• Clear organisation of the submission pack, so certificates and supporting documents are not hunted down at the last minute

UK Planning Gateway is one example of a tool built around this practice workflow, particularly for teams managing repeat submissions and shared information across projects.

Which approach suits which practice

There is no single best route. The useful question is operational: how often do you submit, how many people touch the submission pack, and how much rework do you currently absorb.

If you submit occasionally, a straightforward route may be enough. If you submit repeatedly, the value usually comes from standardising inputs and keeping information consistent across the team. A structured workflow, whether managed internally or supported by a professional tool, tends to be easier to maintain over time.

A practical selection checklist for practices

Use this checklist when you are choosing how to run submissions in your office.

• Can we reuse core project data without retyping it each time?
• Can we keep a consistent drawing and file standard across the team?
• Can we run a pre-submission alignment check quickly and consistently?
• Does the workflow make boundary information easy to verify and present clearly?
• Can we keep certificates and supporting documents in one controlled submission pack?
• Can we hand over a live submission without losing context?

Submission work becomes expensive when it is repeated, fragmented, and corrected late. Practices that treat submission as a controlled workflow tend to protect billable time and reduce internal rework, regardless of the route used. The right choice is the one that keeps your information consistent and your process repeatable.

FAQ

What are professional planning submission tools designed for?

They are designed for repeat submissions in practice settings, where multiple applications, multiple contributors, and multiple deadlines make consistency and reuse important.

Are professional planning submission tools only for large practices?

No. Any practice submitting regularly can benefit from a repeatable workflow, even with a small team.

What do professional planning submission tools typically support?

They often support structured steps, reuse of common data, pre-submission checking, mapping support, and clearer organisation of the submission pack.

Do submission routes affect whether an application can be registered?

Registration depends on meeting the authority’s validation requirements, including the correct plans, certificates, supporting documents, boundary information, and fee.

How should architects choose a submission approach?

Choose based on submission frequency, team structure, and how you manage consistency across documents and boundary information.