The appeal questionnaire and what the council must supply

The appeal questionnaire is the form the local planning authority returns to the Planning Inspectorate shortly after the appeal start date, with the case file attached: the decision notice, the officer report, extracts of the policies relied on, consultation responses, third-party representations and the relevant planning history. It is the first sight you get of the authority's case in its own words, and it usually arrives before your statement is due. Read it properly and the statement writes itself.

Most agents skim it for the site visit arrangements and then file it. That is a wasted document.

What the start date sets running

The start date is not the date you submitted the appeal. The Inspectorate sets it once the appeal is valid, and every other deadline counts from it. The questionnaire is due back from the authority within a few working days of that date, normally five, with statements and interested party comments following at set intervals that differ between householder, written representations, hearing and inquiry procedures. Check the current procedural guide for your route rather than working from memory, because the periods have changed more than once.

Two things are fixed whatever the route. The authority cannot quietly add a new reason for refusal later without the Inspector allowing it, and the appellant cannot introduce a redesigned scheme. The appeal is against the decision on the application as submitted. That is worth saying to a client who asks whether a smaller extension could be substituted at appeal stage.

Where the appeal is against non-determination rather than refusal, the sequence is the same but the questionnaire carries no decision notice, and the authority instead sets out the reasons it would have given. If you are weighing that route, the trade-offs in appealing non-determination or waiting matter more than the questionnaire itself.

The questionnaire and its attachments

The form itself asks the authority a short series of factual questions: how the application was publicised, who was consulted, whether a site notice or press notice was used, whether the site can be seen from public land, what access the Inspector needs and whether the authority wants to make a costs application. The attachments are where the value sits.

The policy extracts deserve a line of their own. An authority that refuses on a general design policy and then attaches only that policy has given you the shape of its case, and anything it raises later sits outside the extracts it chose to supply.

Policy extracts and the development plan

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the determination to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, so the extracts tell you which parts of the plan the authority says you offend. Check three things.

First, whether the policies quoted are from the adopted plan or from an emerging one, because weight differs sharply. Second, whether supplementary planning documents are included, since a householder design guide or parking standard is often where the real objection lives. Third, whether the extracts are current, as authorities sometimes attach the version in force when the application was validated rather than the version in force now.

Where the plan is out of date or the authority cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, that argument belongs in your statement with evidence, not in a general assertion.

Consultation responses and the officer report

The officer report is the single most useful attachment. It shows the reasoning the authority applied, the weight it gave each material consideration and, where a committee refused against an officer recommendation, the gap between the professional assessment and the decision. That gap is the appeal.

Consultation responses often undercut the refusal. A highway authority raising no objection subject to conditions removes highway safety from the argument. An environmental health officer who asked for a condition rather than refusal tells you the harm was considered manageable. Where a consultee objected and the objection was later addressed, look for the follow-up response, which is the document most often left out. There is a practical route to chasing those down, covered in getting consultee responses and the officer's case file.

Checking what has been omitted

Work through the questionnaire against your own file. The gaps that matter most are the later consultee response that superseded an objection, pre-application correspondence where the authority gave advice the decision then contradicted, the committee minutes where the refusal reasons were formulated, and the plans list confirming which drawings were determined.

The drawings point is not academic. If the decision notice lists a drawing revision you never submitted, or omits one you did, that needs correcting before the Inspector forms a view of the scheme. And if third-party representations have been redacted so heavily that the substance is lost, ask for a usable version.

Asking for missing documents

Write to the authority's appeals contact, copy the Inspectorate case officer and be specific: name the document, the date and why it bears on a reason for refusal. Keep it short and factual. Most authorities supply the item without argument, because the alternative is an Inspector asking the same question at a less convenient moment.

If it does not arrive, put the request and the absence in your statement. The Inspector can request documents directly and can draw conclusions from an unexplained gap. Do not inflate the point into a procedural grievance, because inspectors are unimpressed by that and it distracts from the planning merits.

Using the questionnaire to shape your statement

Structure your statement around the authority's own material. Take each reason for refusal, identify the policy the extracts supply, then show how the officer report, the consultation responses and the planning history read against it. Where officers recommended approval, quote their assessment rather than paraphrasing it.

An illustrative example. A two-storey side extension is refused on character grounds after a committee overturns an officer recommendation to approve. The questionnaire supplies an officer report concluding the design respects the pattern of the street, a conservation officer response raising no objection and a planning history showing two similar extensions approved in the same terrace. The statement then argues the committee departed from its own officers' assessment without evidence, and the appeal becomes short and precise.

The appeal statement is a policy document, and the same discipline that goes into a Planning Statement at application stage applies here: lead with the policy, then the evidence, then the conclusion. Drafting it from the questionnaire rather than from your original submission is what keeps it responsive.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Appeal procedures and deadlines change, so check the Inspectorate's current procedural guide and confirm anything time-critical with the case officer.

If you are rebuilding an evidence base before a resubmission rather than an appeal, enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports the site is likely to need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.