Why neighbours cannot appeal a planning approval

Neighbours cannot appeal planning permission in England. The right of appeal under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 belongs to the applicant, and it exists only where permission is refused, granted subject to conditions the applicant objects to, or not determined in time. There is no equivalent right for anyone else, however close they live and however strongly they objected.

That comes as a shock to most people who have just spent six weeks writing letters. The practical consequence is that everything a neighbour can usefully do happens before the decision, not after it.

Who holds the right of appeal

Section 78 gives the right to the person who made the application. Read literally, that is the whole of it. An objector is not a party to the application, so there is nothing for them to appeal against.

Three routes exist under section 78, all of them the applicant's. Appeal against refusal. Appeal against a condition. And appeal against non-determination, where the authority has not decided within the statutory period.

A grant of permission cannot be appealed by anyone, including the council once it has issued the decision. The decision is final as an administrative act, and it can only be undone by a court.

Why England has no third party appeal

This is a policy choice rather than an oversight. Successive governments have declined to introduce a third party right of appeal, and the arguments against have stayed consistent: it would add delay to a system already criticised for it, it would duplicate the consultation that already happens, and it would shift decisions further from locally accountable councillors.

The counter-argument is equally consistent. A council that grants permission contrary to its own policy faces no external check unless someone can afford litigation, and the Planning Inspectorate hears appeals only from the side seeking development.

Whatever view you take, the design of the system tells you where to put your effort. The consultation period and the committee are the two points at which a neighbour's voice has statutory weight, and the objection letter you write at application stage is the document that carries forward if the applicant later appeals a refusal.

Judicial review as the only route

Where a permission has been granted and you believe the decision was unlawful, the route is judicial review in the Planning Court.

Judicial review is not a rehearing. The court does not decide whether the development is a good idea, and it will not substitute its own planning judgement for the council's. It examines the legality of the process.

Grounds that succeed tend to fall into recognisable categories. The authority misinterpreted a policy, which is a question of law. It failed to have regard to a material consideration, or had regard to something immaterial. It failed to follow a mandatory procedural requirement, such as the publicity rules or an environmental assessment obligation. It gave reasons that were inadequate where reasons were required. Or the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have reached it, which is a high bar rarely cleared.

Disagreement with the weight given to an issue is not a ground. Nor is the officer's assessment of design quality, or the members' preference for one view of the evidence over another.

The six week limit and standing

Two hurdles come before the merits.

The time limit is short. A claim challenging a planning decision must be filed promptly and in any event within six weeks of the grounds arising, which in practice means six weeks from the decision notice. That period is not extended because you were waiting for advice or trying to raise funds, and the court has limited discretion.

Standing requires a sufficient interest in the matter. A neighbour whose property adjoins the site, a local resident who objected, or a properly constituted residents association will generally clear it. Standing is rarely the obstacle. Time and money are.

The claim also needs permission to proceed, decided on the papers by a judge, which filters out weak claims early. If permission is refused, the costs incurred to that point are usually modest compared with a full hearing, which is one reason a properly advised claim is worth more than an enthusiastic one.

Costs exposure

This is the part people underestimate.

A losing claimant normally pays the defendant's costs. For environmental claims falling within the Aarhus Convention provisions, the Civil Procedure Rules cap the claimant's liability, historically at £5,000 for an individual and £10,000 for other claimants, with the defendant's exposure capped at £35,000. Those figures and the scope of the provisions have changed over time, so check the current rules before relying on them.

Outside that regime, exposure is uncapped in principle. Add your own legal costs, and a crowdfunded challenge needs to budget for both sides.

There is a less obvious cost too. A developer with permission can start work, and starting work does not automatically stop because a claim has been issued. Interim relief to halt development is available but not routine, and it usually carries a cross-undertaking in damages.

What to do before the decision instead

Since the remedies afterwards are narrow, the work goes in earlier. Five things make a measurable difference.

1. Write an objection that names policies. An objection that cites the local plan policy number and the specific conflict is summarised in the officer report. One that describes how upset the street is may not be.
2. Ask your ward councillor to request that the application go to committee rather than being determined under delegated powers. Each council's scheme of delegation sets out how that works, and the request usually has to be made within the consultation period.
3. Register to speak at committee and use the time on material considerations.
4. Get the technical evidence early. Where the objection is about daylight, noise or highways, a short report from a suitably qualified consultant changes the conversation. Where a developer's Statement of Community Involvement overstates the consultation carried out, say so factually.
5. Use an environmental information request to obtain consultee responses and internal correspondence that has not been published. Do it during the consultation period, not after the decision.

Complaints, and what they can and cannot do

Where the council has handled the application badly, a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is available after the council's own complaints procedure is exhausted.

Be clear about what it achieves. The Ombudsman investigates maladministration causing injustice and can recommend an apology, a change of procedure or a payment. It cannot quash a planning permission or reverse a decision. An ombudsman complaint about a planning decision is therefore worth pursuing for the process, not for the outcome on the ground.

One further avenue is worth knowing. If the development as built departs from the approved plans, that is an enforcement matter rather than an appeal, and the council has discretion to act. Photographs, dated, are what enforcement officers need.

And if the applicant appeals a refusal, the position reverses: you become an interested party with a right to make representations to an inspector. The route for challenging an inspector's decision afterwards runs through a different provision, explained in the guide to challenging an appeal decision in the High Court.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Judicial review has short deadlines and real costs, so take advice from a solicitor promptly if you are considering it.

Browse all 66 report types at PlanScope to see the evidence a council expects from an applicant.