Search for something...
Searching...
In development, margins are tight, timelines are tighter, and pressure is relentless. Faced with rising build costs, political uncertainty, and planning delays, it’s tempting to cut back on professional fees, particularly when it comes to consultants.
But ask yourself: is appointing the cheapest consultant truly saving you money, or is it quietly introducing risk and future cost into your scheme?
DPR was recently instructed to provide daylight and sunlight advice on a scheme that had just been refused planning on daylight grounds. As we began reviewing the submitted documentation, it became clear that something was off.
Firstly, the report did not reflect the appropriate criteria set out in the BRE Guidelines relevant to the specific site, which the planning authority realised. Secondly, large sections of the third-party daylight report had been lifted verbatim from one of DPR’s earlier reports. Not only had the consultant failed to rework the content, but they’d even retained our paragraph numbering and formatting.
This isn’t an isolated incident. We’ve encountered similar cases before and not just in our own discipline. While plagiarism is serious, it’s just the tip of the iceberg. It points to a deeper issue: many cut-price consultants lack the knowledge, rigour, and experience needed to support complex, high-value schemes.
As with other leading firms, DPR is regularly brought in, often late in the process, to fix work carried out by underqualified consultants. By then, the damage has usually been done, planning refusals, delayed decisions, missed opportunities, or reports that simply don’t withstand scrutiny.
Technical areas like daylight/sunlight (planning) and rights of light (legal) demand:
When this isn’t in place, clients often end up paying twice — once for the flawed advice, and again for someone to put it right. Worse still, you may be facing a planning refusal or a legal challenge that could have been avoided entirely.
Rights of light is particularly unforgiving when advice is poor. We’ve seen developers:
Worse still, speculative rights of light claims are on the rise, fuelled by “ambulance-chasing” surveyors and solicitors. If your appointed consultant doesn’t have the expertise to handle such claims quickly and robustly, it can delay your scheme, jeopardise funding, and erode profit.
Specialist software is now more accessible than ever, leading to an influx of consultants offering light-related services without the depth of experience needed. Running calculations is one thing; interpreting them properly, applying policy correctly, and advising on design strategy is another entirely.
We’ve seen low-fee, high-gloss reports fall apart the moment they’re challenged. The risk to the client? Delays, refusals, or costly redesigns.
Appointing the right consultant isn’t just a procurement choice, it’s a strategic decision. You’re not just buying a report; you’re investing in credibility, compliance, and peace of mind.
In today’s planning and development landscape, the cost of getting it wrong is far greater than the cost of getting it right.
