Where should affected UPRNs be recorded?

[colmjude]

We need to decide where to record UPRNs affected by a planning application or proposal.

UPRNs are useful because they identify properties and can support matching, search and analysis.

Current situation

The submission specification currently has uprns in the site-location component, used by the site-details module on application forms. That made it tempting to also include uprns in the decision-stage site dataset.

But that may not be the right place. The site dataset describes the land or buildings the application relates to. If we have a site boundary, UPRNs within or intersecting that boundary can often be derived from a property gazetteer. Storing that derived list on site could become stale or conflict with the boundary. As a general rule we try to avoid recording inferrable data.

There is a separate use case: applicants may need to identify which properties or UPRNs are affected by the proposal. That is not necessarily the same as every UPRN inside the site boundary.

What we need

We need a pattern that lets us:

• record applicant-supplied affected UPRNs where they are known
• distinguish submitted affected-property information from UPRNs derived from a boundary
• avoid making site carry derived data that could go stale
• support search, matching and analysis by affected property

Where should affected UPRNs be recorded?

Questions for feedback

• Currently, do applicants often provide UPRNs during the application process?
• When applicants provide UPRNs today, are they identifying the site, affected properties, or both?
• Are affected UPRNs needed in the decision-stage specification, the submission specification, or both? What will they be used for?
• If UPRNs are derived from a boundary, should that derived list be part of the specification or left to consuming services? There is a difference between what gets stored and what can be provided to consuming services.
• Should we create a separate affected-property or affected-premises pattern linked to the planning application?
• Do we need provenance, for example applicant-supplied, authority-supplied or system-derived?

[James-Planningportal]

• Currently, do applicants often provide UPRNs during the application process?
• When applicants provide UPRNs today, are they identifying the site, affected properties, or both?

For any application via Planning Portal, where the applicant identifies a single address, that addresses URPN is included in the site location data. This is not currently entered (or able to be entered/edited) manually by the user, it is taken directly from the address database record to ensure referential integrity.

I would think that the URPN should simply be part of the address record for each property within the site (of which there may be multiple, which this standard supports).

It should not be assumed that URPN equates to 'the site', though it may do in some cases. In others, the site boundary may extend beyond the property boundary to which the UPRN relates (e.g. if application covers a building and other land to the rear)

• Are affected UPRNs needed in the decision-stage specification, the submission specification, or both? What will they be used for?

I would suggest both, as this identifies the property in a way that can be cross referenced with any other data as per Government best practise: https://www.geoplace.co.uk/addresses-streets/data-in-use/guidance