Pre-Application Guidance as a Digital Service

Executive summary

Departments answer the same pre-application questions repeatedly: what drawings are needed, which studies apply, whether this work needs a permit at all. The answers are given informally, so they are inconsistent and unrecorded.

A pre-application service converts that traffic into published requirement lists, worked examples, self-check tools and, for complex projects, a recorded meeting. The result is fewer failed submissions and a defensible record of what was advised.

Why formalise it

Informal advice creates three problems: applicants receive different answers depending on who they reach; the department carries risk from advice it cannot evidence; and the same questions consume staff time indefinitely.

CMHC best-practice material on approval improvement points toward front-end clarity as a lever available to municipalities without changing review standards [1].

A three-tier service

Implications for authorities having jurisdiction

Publish the requirement list per permit type first — it removes the largest share of enquiry volume. Add two or three worked examples of complete submissions, which are more effective than additional prose.

Record tier 2 and tier 3 advice against the eventual application. It protects both parties and reveals where published material is unclear.

Implications for applicants and professionals

For unusual projects, a pre-application meeting is worth the calendar time it costs. Bring the specific questions and the intended demonstration, not a general design review request.

Keep the department’s written pre-application response with the project file and reference it in the submission; it shortens the reviewer’s orientation.

Risks, limitations and safeguards

• Pre-application advice can be mistaken for approval; the boundary statement must appear on every artefact.
• Self-serve determinations of whether a permit is required carry risk; keep them conservative and route edge cases to a person.
• Advice recorded inconsistently is worse than none; use a structured form.
• Meeting capacity is finite; reserve tier 3 for genuine complexity with published criteria.
• Published material must be versioned so it is clear what an applicant was told and when.

PermitAssure perspective

PermitAssure generates applicant-facing requirement lists from the same configuration that drives intake checking, and records pre-application enquiries and their responses against the eventual application, with the boundary statement attached. Guidance never appears as a compliance determination.