Correcting an error in an appeal decision letter

A planning appeal decision arrives with the site address wrong, or a condition that cross-refers to a plan number that does not exist. There is a statutory fix, and it is not an appeal against the appeal. Sections 56 to 58 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 let the Secretary of State or the inspector correct errors in a decision document, on request or on their own initiative, within the same six weeks that the decision could be challenged in the High Court.

The power is narrow by design. It reaches slips in the document, and it stops at the reasoning. Correcting an appeal decision error is therefore a triage exercise: work out within days whether what you are looking at is a correctable error or a ground of challenge, because the two have the same deadline and completely different routes.

Which errors the correction power reaches

Section 56(3) defines a correctable error as an error in the decision document which is not part of any reasons given for the decision. That single qualification does most of the work.

Things that are usually correctable:

• The site address, postcode or appeal reference.
• The description of development, where it has been transcribed wrongly from the application form.
• Plan numbers and revision suffixes listed in the approved drawings condition.
• Condition numbering, duplicated condition numbers, and cross-references from one condition to another.
• The name of the appellant or the local planning authority.
• An obvious arithmetical slip, such as a dimension carried across incorrectly from the appellant's statement.
• A decision paragraph that grants permission while the conditions schedule is headed as a refusal.

Things that are not correctable, because they sit inside the reasoning:

• A finding of fact the inspector got wrong.
• A misapplication of policy, or reliance on a superseded policy.
• A failure to deal with a main issue raised by a party.
• A condition the inspector plainly intended to impose, which you say is unreasonable or fails the six tests.

The awkward middle is the condition that does not work. Where the inspector's reasoning explains exactly what the condition is meant to achieve and the drafting fails to achieve it, there is a real argument that the defect is a slip in the document rather than part of the reasons. Set out that argument expressly in the request rather than leaving the Inspectorate to construct it.

Who can ask, and the six weeks that matter

Any person may make a written request for a correction. You do not have to have been a party to the appeal, which occasionally matters for an interested neighbour who spots that the decision describes the wrong property.

The request has to reach the Planning Inspectorate before the end of the relevant period, which is the period within which the decision could be questioned under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is six weeks beginning with the day after the decision document is issued. Miss it and the power is gone, however obvious the error.

The Secretary of State or the inspector can also start the process without a request, by informing the appellant and the local planning authority that a correction is proposed. Again, that has to happen inside the same six weeks.

Practical points that decide whether a request succeeds:

1. Quote the paragraph and the exact wording you say is wrong, and give the wording you say it should be.
2. Explain why the error is not part of the reasons, in one short paragraph. That is the statutory test and it is the only thing the caseworker has to decide.
3. Attach the source document that shows what the correct text is, usually the application form, the decision notice or the drawing schedule.
4. Copy the other main party. Corrections are not made behind anyone's back and an agreed request moves faster.
5. Do not attach a critique of the merits. Anything that reads as an appeal against the outcome makes the request look like a challenge in disguise.

The correction notice and what it says

Section 57 requires a correction notice to be issued whether or not the correction is made. The notice goes to the applicant or appellant, to the local planning authority, and to anyone who requested the correction, and it either specifies the correction or states that no correction has been made.

That second limb matters. A refusal to correct is communicated formally, so you are not left guessing, and you know on a stated date whether the document you are holding is final.

Before making a correction, the decision-maker considers representations from the parties. In practice that means the other side is invited to say whether it agrees the text is wrong, which is why an agreed form of words attached to the original request shortens everything.

Corrections that would change the outcome

A correction can change the substance of what has been permitted, and that is not a bar in itself. If the decision letter grants permission for "the erection of two dwellings" when every other document in the appeal concerned three, correcting the description alters what is authorised.

The line is still whether the error sits in the reasons. An inspector who reasoned throughout about three dwellings and typed two has made a slip. An inspector who reasoned that only two dwellings were acceptable has made a decision, and no correction is available.

Where a correction would materially affect third parties, expect the Inspectorate to take more time and to seek representations. Where it would create a permission nobody argued for, expect a refusal to correct and a section 288 challenge instead.

When a statutory challenge is the only route

Section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the route for a decision that is wrong in law: no jurisdiction, a material error of fact, failure to give adequate reasons, failure to take account of a material consideration, or a breach of natural justice. The application goes to the Planning Court and permission is required. The deadline is six weeks from the day after the decision is issued, and the court has no general power to extend it.

Enforcement appeal decisions under section 174 follow a different path, with an appeal on a point of law to the High Court under section 289 and permission required at the outset.

Because both deadlines are the same six weeks, a correction request does not buy you time on a challenge unless the correction is actually made. Where an error might be either, the cautious approach is to ask for the correction and take advice on a challenge in parallel rather than in sequence. Weigh that against the cost, and against whether a fresh application would reach the same place faster, which is the calculation behind twin-tracking a duplicate application at an earlier stage.

What a correction does to the decision date

Section 58 sets out the effect. If a correction is made, the original decision is treated as not having been made, and the decision is treated as made on the date the correction notice is issued. The six-week challenge period runs again from that date.

If no correction is made, the original decision stands and the original date holds, so the challenge window is unaffected by having asked.

That reset has consequences beyond litigation. The three-year commencement period for a permission granted on appeal runs from the corrected decision date, and any condition timed from the date of the permission shifts with it. Record the corrected date in the project file rather than the original one, alongside the drawings and discharge correspondence you would keep for a compliance file after permission is granted.

Reading a decision letter before the clock runs

Diarise the six-week date the day the decision arrives. Then read the document once for the outcome and a second time as a proofreader, with the application form and the drawing schedule open alongside.

Check the site address and appeal reference, the description of development word for word, the formal decision paragraph, each condition in sequence for numbering and internal cross-references, every plan number and revision letter, and the costs decision if there is one. Read the conditions against the reasoning, because a condition that does not deliver what the reasoning describes is the one worth arguing about.

Where the decision lands well and the drafting is sound, the next job is the discharge of conditions programme and the supporting evidence each one calls for. PlanScope can produce a first draft of those supporting documents for professional review before submission.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.