Reasons for refusal that fail the precision test

Article 35 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 requires a notice refusing planning permission to state clearly and precisely the full reasons for the refusal, specifying all policies and proposals in the development plan that are relevant to the decision. That is a legal requirement rather than good practice, and a reason that fails it is a reason you can attack.

A vague refusal is not a favour. It is harder to answer, it prolongs the appeal, and it costs the applicant money. The useful response is to treat the imprecision as an issue in its own right, rather than guessing at what the council meant and answering that instead.

What a reason for refusal has to contain

Three components, and a competent reason has all of them.

The harm. What, specifically, is wrong with the development. Not a restatement of a policy title, but the effect on a named interest: the amenity of a particular property, the character of a defined area, the safety of a specific junction.

The policy. The development plan policies relied on, cited by number, plus any relevant national policy. Article 35 requires the policies to be specified, so a reference to "policies of the development plan" does not comply.

The connection. Why the harm identified breaches the policy cited. This is the part most often missing, and its absence is what makes a reason unanswerable.

A reason with all three can be met with evidence. A reason with only the second can only be guessed at.

Policy citation and the harm identified

Two failure patterns are worth naming because they are so common.

The first is the policy-only reason. "The proposal is contrary to Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan." No harm identified, no explanation. An appellant reading this has to construct the council's case before answering it, which is a poor use of fee income.

The second is the harm-only reason. "The proposal would be detrimental to the character of the area." No policy cited, no description of the character in question, and no indication of which element of the design causes the harm. Article 35 is not satisfied, and at appeal the council will have to fill the gap in its statement, which is itself a point worth making.

A third variant deserves mention: the reason that bundles several unrelated objections into one paragraph. Separate objections need separate reasons, because otherwise an appellant who answers three of four points cannot tell whether the reason falls away.

Where a refusal concerns a specific topic, the evidence that answers it is usually well established, and our notes on neighbour amenity refusals and on refusals for loss of employment land set out what that evidence looks like in two of the commonest areas.

Reasons that cannot be answered

Some formulations leave an applicant with nothing to work on.

"Insufficient information" deserves particular attention, because it is often a validation issue dressed as a refusal. If the council needed a report, it should have asked during the application, and its own local validation list is the measure of what it was entitled to require.

Asking the council to clarify

Do this before lodging the appeal, in writing, and give a deadline.

Ask three questions. What is the harm the council says the proposal causes. What evidence does the council rely on. And which part of the cited policy is breached, and how. Send it to the case officer and copy the development management manager.

Two outcomes are both useful. A reply that explains the reason gives you something to answer, and it becomes part of the appeal documents. No reply, or a reply that simply repeats the reason, is evidence of unreasonable behaviour to deploy later.

Where the refusal followed a committee decision against officer advice, ask for the officer report and the committee minutes at the same time. The gap between what officers recommended and what members resolved is often where the imprecision originated.

Our note on reading a refusal notice and turning it into a plan covers the wider exercise of converting a decision notice into a work programme.

Effect on the appeal and on costs

An imprecise reason changes the appeal in two ways.

Procedurally, it shifts the burden. The council has to explain its case in its appeal statement, and where the statement introduces harm that the decision notice never mentioned, say so. Inspectors take the decision notice as the council's case and are not sympathetic to a reason that grows at appeal stage.

On costs, the appeals guidance treats unreasonable behaviour as the basis for an award, and it gives examples that include failing to substantiate a reason for refusal and preventing development that should clearly have been permitted. A reason that does not identify any harm, that the council then fails to support with evidence, sits squarely in that territory.

Make the costs application properly if you make one. Set out the behaviour, the wasted expense it caused and the evidence, and make it at the right stage of the procedure rather than as an afterthought in a closing submission.

Committee reasons drafted on the day

Where members refuse against an officer recommendation, the reasons are often drafted in the meeting or shortly afterwards, sometimes by an officer who advised the opposite.

The consequences show up later. Reasons that do not match the debate. Policies cited because they sound relevant. Harm asserted without evidence because no evidence was ever prepared. And occasionally a council that declines to defend a reason at appeal, which is worth asking about directly.

Where a resolution to refuse is made at committee, the better practice is to defer the wording so officers can draft reasons that can be defended, and some authorities do exactly that. Where yours did not, the minutes and the webcast are both public and both worth obtaining.

Using a weak reason to your advantage

Three practical moves, in order.

1. Answer the reason as generously as you can, addressing every harm it could reasonably mean, and say in terms that you have done so because the reason does not specify.
2. Put the council to proof. State that the reason does not identify harm, that Article 35 requires clear and precise reasons specifying the policies, and that the appellant reserves the right to respond to any case advanced for the first time in the council's statement.
3. Signal the costs position early, without threatening. A sentence in the statement of case noting that an application for costs may follow if the reason remains unsupported is usually enough.

Then build the positive case regardless. An appeal is won on the planning merits, and a procedural point about the reason for refusal is a supporting argument rather than the case itself. A well drafted Planning Statement at application stage is the best protection against a vague refusal, because it forces the council to engage with the policy framework you have set out.

This article 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.