Correcting a mistake in a decision notice

Two different regimes deal with mistakes in planning decisions, and using the wrong one wastes weeks. Sections 56 to 59 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 create a statutory power to correct errors in decision documents issued by the Secretary of State or an inspector. That is the slip rule practitioners refer to, and it applies to appeal decisions and called-in applications. It does not apply to a decision notice issued by a local planning authority.

For a council notice there is no statutory slip rule at all. The routes are section 96A, section 73, a fresh application, or, in rare cases, a challenge in the High Court.

The errors that actually turn up

Wrong site address, or the right street and the wrong number. The wrong application reference, usually where two applications on the same site were determined in the same week.

Plan numbers in the approved plans condition that do not match the drawings actually assessed, including superseded revisions and drawings that were withdrawn during the application.

A condition from another case pasted in, which happens more often than anyone admits. A pre-commencement condition that the officer agreed to delete in correspondence and which survives in the notice. A condition referring to a scheme that was never submitted.

A decision issued as a refusal when the committee resolved to approve, or the reverse. That is not a slip and there is no easy fix.

And the description of development differing from the application form, which matters later because the permission authorises what the description says.

The statutory power, and what it reaches

Under section 56, where the Secretary of State or an inspector issues a decision document containing a correctable error, it can be corrected. A correctable error is an error in the document that is not part of any reasons given for the decision.

That definition does the limiting. The slip rule fixes the mechanics of the document. It does not allow the inspector to reconsider a conclusion, add reasoning, or change the outcome because somebody disagrees with it.

Section 57 sets the procedure. A correction may be made only if a written request is received from any person, or a statement in writing is sent to the applicant and the authority, within the relevant period. That period is the time during which the decision could be challenged in the High Court, which is six weeks from the decision.

Section 58 deals with effect. Where the correction is made, a correction notice is issued, the original decision is treated as not having been made, and the corrected decision takes effect from the date of the correction notice. Where it is not made, a notice records that and the original decision stands. Either way the six week challenge clock runs from the notice, which is a point worth knowing if you were considering a challenge anyway.

Who can ask, and when

Any person may request a correction, and that includes someone who was not a party. In practice it is the appellant's agent or the authority.

Write to the case officer at the Planning Inspectorate quoting the appeal reference, identify the error precisely, state what the document should say, and explain why the error falls outside the reasons for the decision. Keep it to a page. A request that argues the inspector reached the wrong conclusion will be refused, and it will consume part of the six weeks.

Diary the six weeks on the day the decision arrives. There is no discretion to extend it.

Fixing a council decision notice

Start by working out what kind of error it is.

A plain clerical slip, such as a misspelt road name or an obvious typographical error in a reference, is usually corrected by the authority reissuing the notice. This has no statutory basis. It is common, it is generally accepted, and it is worth having in writing.

An error in the conditions, or in the approved plans list, needs a formal route. A non-material amendment under section 96A can adjust matters that are properly non-material, including some plan number corrections and minor condition wording. An application under section 73 varies or removes a condition and produces a new permission, which is the reliable route where a condition is wrong in substance. Both carry fees and determination periods.

An error in the description of development is harder. Section 96A can sometimes address it where the change is non-material, but a description that authorises something different from what was assessed may need a fresh application.

And where the decision itself is wrong, meaning the notice grants what the authority resolved to refuse or the reverse, the only routes are a fresh application or judicial review, with its own short time limit. Take legal advice quickly, because the window is weeks rather than months, and the authority may itself want to resolve the position rather than defend a notice it accepts is wrong.

Telling other people

Where a correction changes anything anyone else relied on, say so. Neighbours who read the original conditions, a consultee whose requirement appeared in a condition that has since moved, and any party to a section 106 all have an interest.

Lenders and purchasers are the other audience. A permission that has been corrected produces two documents on the file, and a solicitor reading them out of order will query it. Keep the correction notice stapled to the decision in the project pack, with a covering note explaining what changed, and the question never arises.

On appeals, the Inspectorate notifies the parties. On a council notice, the authority updates the public register, and the courteous step is to ask it to do so promptly rather than assuming it has.

Read the notice the day it arrives

The habit that avoids most of this takes fifteen minutes. Open the notice and check the site address, the applicant name, the application reference, the description of development, the date, every drawing number in the approved plans condition against the drawing register, and every condition against the officer report and any correspondence about condition wording.

Build the check into the office procedure rather than relying on someone remembering. On a busy caseload the notice gets scanned, filed and forgotten, and the error surfaces when the contractor reads the conditions before a start on site.

Flag anything wrong the same week. Inside six weeks there are options on an appeal decision, and inside a few days a council will usually reissue a clerical slip without argument. Six months later, with the site sold and a purchaser's solicitor reading the conditions, the same error becomes a section 73 application and a delay to a start on site. The temporary permissions and expiry problem has the same shape: small documentary details that only matter later, when they matter a great deal.

PlanScope drafts the supporting documents for the application or the variation, including a Planning Statement structured to UK planning policy, and you can browse all 66 report types to scope what is needed. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. This is general guidance, not legal advice, so take advice on any challenge before relying on it.