How an inspector's decision letter is structured

An appeal decision letter puts the answer first. Before any reasoning, the opening paragraph states whether the appeal is allowed or dismissed, and if it is allowed, it grants permission subject to the conditions in the schedule at the end. Everything between those two points explains how the inspector got there. Learning to read the structure is worth an hour, because it tells you where the decision was actually made and which parts of the letter carry weight in a later case.

The reference number at the top decodes the case. It carries the authority code, a letter for the appeal type, the year and a case number, and the letter is the useful part: W for a full planning appeal, D for a householder appeal, C for an enforcement appeal, X for a lawful development certificate appeal and Y for a listed building appeal.

Procedural matters at the start

After the decision, the letter deals with anything about the process that affects what follows. This is a short section and it is easy to skip, which is a mistake.

It records the procedure used, written representations, a hearing or an inquiry, and it records the site visit. It notes any revised plans accepted or refused, any change in the description of development, and whether the appeal was determined on a different basis from the application. Where a party asked for something and did not get it, this is where the inspector says so.

It also records whether policy changed during the appeal. National policy is revised often enough that this paragraph matters, and the consequences of a change mid-appeal are set out in when national policy changes during your appeal.

The main issues and how they are framed

The inspector states the main issue or issues, usually in a single sentence each. This is the pivot of the whole letter.

The main issues are the inspector's framing, not the council's. A refusal notice with four reasons may produce two main issues, because the inspector has grouped them, or three, because the inspector has identified something the council did not plead. Read this paragraph against the refusal notice and note every difference, because a refusal reason that does not appear as a main issue has usually been set aside.

The framing also controls the burden. "Whether the proposal would preserve the character of the conservation area" places the emphasis differently from "the effect of the proposal on the character of the conservation area", and inspectors choose their wording deliberately.

Reasoning against each issue

Each main issue gets its own run of paragraphs, and the structure within them is consistent. The inspector identifies the relevant development plan policy and the relevant national policy, describes the site and the proposal in the terms that matter to that issue, records the evidence from both parties, and reaches a conclusion in a sentence that usually begins with a finding of harm or no harm.

That concluding sentence is the one to extract. It is the finding a later decision maker will quote, and it is the finding a legal challenge would attack.

Note what the inspector does with disputed technical evidence. Where two experts disagree, an inspector will often prefer one on a stated ground: the survey was more recent, the method followed published guidance, the assumptions were tested. Those preferences are instructive when you are deciding what evidence to commission for a similar case, and they are the reason a Planning Statement that cites method as well as conclusion tends to fare better.

Other matters and third party points

A section headed other matters catches the points that were raised but did not become main issues: highway safety where the highway authority did not object, loss of a view, effect on property value, construction disturbance, and the arguments raised in neighbour representations.

Inspectors deal with these briefly and often in a single paragraph each. Two patterns recur. Matters controlled by other legislation, such as building regulations or private rights, are noted as falling outside the planning decision. And matters that are material but carry little weight on the facts are acknowledged and given that weight explicitly.

Do not read a brief treatment as a failure to consider. The duty is to give reasons that are intelligible and adequate, not to answer every point at length.

The planning balance and conditions

The balance section applies the statutory starting point: the determination is made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Where the development plan is out of date or the authority cannot demonstrate a housing land supply, the inspector will say so and apply the national policy consequences. Where heritage is in play, the statutory duties and the weight given to harm appear here rather than in the reasoning section. This paragraph is where the decision is won or lost in most finely balanced cases, and it is typically only a few sentences long.

If the appeal succeeds, the conditions follow in a schedule. Inspectors routinely amend the council's suggested conditions, delete ones that fail the tests of necessity and precision, and add their own. Compare the schedule against the conditions the council proposed, because the differences tell you how that authority's standard conditions are viewed.

Costs dealt with separately

Costs are not decided in the appeal decision letter. An application for costs produces its own decision, issued separately, and the test is unreasonable behaviour rather than the outcome of the appeal.

Unreasonable behaviour has a settled meaning in this context: pursuing a case without evidence, relying on a reason for refusal that the authority cannot substantiate, failing to review a position after clear new information, or causing an appeal to be adjourned. Winning an appeal does not entitle an appellant to costs, and losing one does not expose them to an award.

If a costs decision exists it will be published alongside the appeal decision, and a party's conduct at inquiry is where the question most often arises, as proofs of evidence and rebuttals at inquiry touches on.

Using past decisions as indicative rather than binding

Appeal decisions are not binding precedent. Each appeal is determined on its own facts and on the policy in force at the time, and an inspector is not obliged to follow another inspector.

Consistency is, however, a material consideration. Where a relevant earlier decision is drawn to an inspector's attention, they are expected to have regard to it and to give reasons for departing from it. So citing a decision can help, provided you use it properly.

• Cite the reference number and the date, and attach the letter.
• Explain why the facts are comparable, in specifics rather than in general terms.
• Say which policy framework applied, and whether it has since changed.
• Quote the finding, not a summary of it.
• Do not cite a decision from a different authority on a locally worded policy without explaining the policy context.

A bundle of loosely similar decisions with no analysis carries almost no weight. One decision, closely comparable, with the relevant paragraphs marked, can shift a case.

Decisions that were quashed or superseded are worse than useless, so check the status before relying on one. And where an appeal was returned rather than decided, there is no reasoning to rely on at all, which is covered in why the Planning Inspectorate returns appeals as invalid.

Browse all 66 PlanScope report types to see which evidence a resubmission or an appeal statement 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.