The duty to give reasons on a planning decision notice

A decision notice refusing planning permission must state clearly and precisely the full reasons for the refusal and specify all the development plan policies relevant to the decision. The same obligation applies to every condition imposed on a grant: each one needs its own stated reason. That duty sits in article 35 of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015, and it is the hook for most of the arguments a consultant has with an authority after a decision lands.

There is no equivalent statutory duty to give reasons for granting permission. The requirement to give summary reasons for approval was removed in 2013, which is why challenges to grants run on common law grounds instead.

What the decision notice must contain

For a refusal, three things: the decision, the full reasons expressed clearly and precisely, and the relevant development plan policies identified rather than gestured at. The notice must also tell the applicant about the right of appeal and the statutory provisions on purchase notices.

For a grant with conditions, the conditions and the reason for each condition, again with the relevant policies specified. One block of reasons covering eight conditions does not satisfy the requirement, although it is common enough.

Where the development was subject to environmental impact assessment, the regulations add their own information requirements about the main reasons and considerations behind the decision. Check the EIA Regulations position separately, because it is easy to assume article 35 is the whole of it.

Reasons for refusal and their adequacy

The standard for adequacy comes from the House of Lords decision in South Bucks District Council v Porter (No 2) in 2004, which remains the starting point. Reasons must be intelligible and adequate, must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the principal controversial issues, and a reason is only legally inadequate if the shortfall gives rise to substantial doubt and the person has been substantially prejudiced by it.

In practice the problems divide into three kinds. The reason that recites a policy number without saying what the conflict is. The reason that states a conclusion without identifying the harm. And the reason that introduces an issue never raised during the application.

The third type is the one worth challenging early. If the first you hear of a daylight objection is in the decision notice, the officer's case file will usually show whether that assessment was ever carried out, and a request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 will produce it. Our note on getting consultee responses and the officer's case file covers the mechanics.

Reasons for each condition

A condition's reason does more than satisfy article 35. It tells you whether the condition meets the six tests set out in the Planning Practice Guidance on the use of planning conditions, because a reason that cannot explain why the condition is necessary and relevant to the development is a reason that identifies an unlawful condition.

Read condition reasons with three questions:

• Does the reason identify a planning harm the condition addresses, or does it simply name a policy
• Is the condition necessary, or does other legislation already control the same thing
• For a condition that must be discharged before work starts, is there a reason it cannot be discharged later

That last point is where most of the value lies. Conditions requiring approval before any development starts delay sites, and the Planning Practice Guidance expects them to be used only where the requirement has to be settled before anything else happens. A condition whose reason does not explain the timing is a condition to challenge, either by negotiation or on appeal.

Where reasons are inadequate

For a refusal, the practical consequences are usually procedural rather than fatal. Inadequate reasons on a refusal do not invalidate it, but they shape the appeal: the authority has to particularise its case in its statement of case, and a case that expands well beyond the stated reasons is vulnerable.

For a grant, the position is different because there is no statutory duty. The Supreme Court in Dover District Council v Campaign to Protect Rural England Kent in 2017 confirmed that a common law duty to give reasons can arise, and that it is more likely where a committee grants permission against officer advice, in a sensitive designated area, or where the statutory framework requires particular findings. That is the route a third party challenging a grant will take, and the time limit for judicial review of a planning decision is short, so the analysis has to be done quickly.

Reading the officer report alongside the notice

The decision notice is the formal document, and the officer report is where the reasoning lives. For a delegated decision the report is the only record of how the balance was struck, and for a committee decision the report plus the minutes and any recording show what members actually relied on.

Get both before deciding what to do. A refusal with three thin reasons sometimes sits on a detailed officer report that identifies a fourth concern never written into the notice, which tells you what the authority will argue on appeal. A grant with a perfunctory report and a committee resolution against officer advice tells you something quite different.

Where the committee departed from the recommendation, look for whether the minutes record the reasons members gave. An absence of recorded reasoning is the gap that the Dover principle addresses.

Using poor reasons at appeal

An appeal is a redetermination, so the inspector decides the application afresh rather than reviewing the authority's reasoning. Poor reasons still help the appellant in three ways.

1. They narrow the authority's case, because an authority introducing new grounds has to explain why they were not in the decision notice
2. They support an application for costs where the authority has behaved unreasonably, including by failing to substantiate a reason for refusal
3. They let you focus the appeal statement on the actual issues rather than responding to everything

Unreasonable behaviour is the test for costs, and the published guidance on appeals sets out the categories. Failing to produce evidence to substantiate each reason for refusal is one of them. Keep the correspondence that shows you asked the authority to particularise, because it is the evidence the inspector will want.

Asking for clarification before appealing

Do this first, in writing, within days of the decision. Ask the case officer to identify, for each reason for refusal, the policy conflict, the harm and the evidence relied on. Ask whether any amendment would overcome the reason.

Two outcomes are useful. Either you get a reply that narrows the dispute and tells you whether a revised application is the better route, or you get silence and a useful document for the costs application. A planning statement for a revised submission can then address the reasons directly rather than restating the original case.

Where the authority has simply not decided, the reasons question does not arise at all and the options are different, which our guide to appealing non-determination sets out.

If you are rebuilding a submission after a refusal, browse the report types and start with the documents the reasons for refusal actually point to.

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.