## 3 Initial Survey Results and Discussion
### Coordination Barriers and Documentation Misalignment in the Planning Process  
The misalignment is further reflected in the specific challenges identified by respondents in Table 1. Several key factors contribute to the duplication of work when obtaining design approval from the railway infrastructure authority and planning consent from local authorities. These issues primarily stem from inconsistencies in documentation requirements, differing expectations between regulatory bodies, and a lack of coordination during the approval process. One recurring theme is the misalignment between the design documentation used within the railway sector and the expectations of LPAs. Several respondents noted that planning authorities often do not accept documents in the standard format used by the infrastructure management organisation, leading to additional submissions or modifications. Similarly, the level of detail required in planning applications varies, with some submissions requiring highly detailed drawings while others may need more generalised design information. This discrepancy leads to inefficiencies and additional work to tailor submissions based on differing requirements. Another challenge identified is the iterative nature of the planning process, and approvals are often contingent on multiple revisions. One respondent noted that planning authorities sometimes fail to provide clear guidelines up front, resulting in multiple design iterations--sometimes up to five or six revisions--before reaching an acceptable solution. This lack of clear direction increases the time and effort required for approvals, adding unnecessary complexity to the process. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l} \hline
**What Do You Feel Is the Main Reasoning Behind the Duplication of Work Required to Gain Both Design** \\
**Approval with Network Rail and Obtain Local Authority Planning Consent?** \\ \hline Response 1.—Planning authorities do not always like the documents in NR format \\ \hline Response 2.—Designer does not provide the level of information that a non-designer needs, detailed drawings are not always required in some cases, so we have to do more submissions, albeit simplified \\ \hline Response 3.—Rather than simply stating what they will/will not accept, we end up going through multiple versions of a design until we reach one that they are happy with. Sometimes it takes as many as 5/6 iterations of modifications to make them happy. This being in spite of them saying they would have originally accepted it. \\ \hline Response 4.—A lack of understanding of heritage issues by the supply chain. \\ \hline Response 5.—Approval by NR does not necessarily accord with the approval by the LPA. \\ \hline Response 6.—It feels like there are a number of layers to obtain consent. In some cases, we needs to obtain \\ approval/comments from design review panel and heritage trust. Comments can be subjective and even conflicting \\ \hline Response 7.—Depends very much on the engagement between asset team and town planning team early on in the \\ remitting/scoping process. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Participants’ responses to the survey to provide reasons for why duplication of work has been performed by industry practitioners, offering initial insights into what needs to be addressed. A lack of understanding of heritage-specific issues within the supply chain was also cited as contributing to additional work. If those involved in the design and approval process lack sufficient knowledge of historical asset preservation, applications may fail to address key heritage considerations, leading to further reworks. This is compounded by the fact that approvals from the railway authority do not always align with those of the LPAs, creating additional layers of consent that must be navigated. Some respondents also pointed to the complexity of the multi-layered approval process, in which additional stakeholders, such as design review panels and heritage trusts, must provide comments or grant their approval before planning consent is granted.