Weight given to a previous refusal on the same site

A previous refusal on your site does not stop you applying again, and it does not settle the outcome. It is a material consideration, which means the council has to take it into account but can reach a different conclusion where something has changed. What makes the difference is showing the officer, in writing and on the drawings, exactly which of the earlier reasons for refusal each change answers.

Councils see a lot of resubmissions that are quietly different and silently hopeful. Those get refused again, usually with the same wording copied across. The ones that succeed treat the refusal notice as a list of tasks.

Why planning history counts

Applications are determined under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004: in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site's planning history is one of those material considerations.

That cuts both ways. An earlier refusal is evidence that the authority has already formed a view about this site and this kind of development. An earlier approval, or a lapsed permission, is evidence the other way, and a fallback position that could still lawfully be built carries real weight in the balance.

Where a site has more than one live permission, the question of which can still be implemented is a separate problem, dealt with in our note on the Pilkington principle.

Consistency, and the duty to explain a departure

Decision makers are expected to be consistent. Where an inspector has already decided an appeal on the same site, or on a very similar one nearby, that decision is a material consideration and the next decision maker has to give reasons for reaching a different conclusion. A council can depart from an earlier appeal decision, but it has to explain itself, and a failure to do so is a ground of challenge.

The weight attaching to different kinds of history runs roughly like this:

• An appeal decision on the same site, recent and on the same issue: high weight, and the reasoning will usually be followed.
• A council refusal on the same site with the same scheme: substantial weight unless the policy position has moved.
• A council refusal on a materially different scheme: limited weight, because the new scheme is a different proposal.
• A refusal on a neighbouring site: relevant where the issue is common to both, such as a street-wide character judgement.
• A withdrawn application: not a refusal at all, and of little weight beyond the officer comments it generated.

The passage of time matters too. A refusal from eight years ago, before the current local plan was adopted and before two editions of the National Planning Policy Framework, is a weaker constraint than one from last spring.

What justifies a different answer

Four kinds of change persuade officers, and it helps to be explicit about which you are relying on.

A change to the proposal. The extension is a metre shorter, the roof is hipped rather than gabled, the flank window has gone, the parking has moved. This is the most common and the most straightforward.

A change in policy. A new local plan or a new edition of the Framework can shift the test the earlier decision applied. Check whether the policy cited in the refusal reason still exists in the same form.

A change in the facts. New evidence, such as a daylight and sunlight assessment, a highways note or a bat survey, can remove a reason for refusal that rested on an absence of information rather than on harm. Refusal reasons beginning "insufficient information has been submitted" are the easiest to fix and the ones people most often ignore.

A fallback position. Where you could carry out something under permitted development that would be as harmful or more so, that is a material consideration, though the fallback has to be a real prospect rather than a theoretical one.

Reading the earlier officer report properly

The decision notice gives you the reasons. The officer report tells you what the officer actually thought, which is often more useful.

Work through it looking for four things:

1. The policies cited, and whether each is still in force. Policies are superseded when a new plan is adopted.
2. The consultation responses. A highways objection and a neighbour objection are different problems requiring different evidence.
3. The paragraphs where the officer accepted something. Those are the points you do not need to re-argue, and repeating them wastes the reader's patience.
4. Any sentence beginning "had the scheme" or "if the proposal were". Officers frequently signal what would have been acceptable, and that sentence is the brief for the new design.

Where a scheme was refused at committee against an officer recommendation, the committee minutes matter more than the report, because the reasons given at the meeting are what the council has to defend.

Presenting the revised scheme

Give the case officer a table. On the left, each reason for refusal, quoted in full. On the right, the change made, with the drawing number and revision that shows it. Nothing else communicates as efficiently, and it goes straight into the new officer report.

Then say plainly what has not changed and why you say it is still acceptable. Silence on a point is read as an attempt to slip it through.

For anything beyond a small householder scheme, the argument belongs in a Planning Statement with a planning history section that lists every application reference, date and outcome. Officers check the history anyway; supplying it accurately saves them time and signals that the application has been prepared carefully.

Two smaller points. Use a new drawing set with fresh numbers rather than marked-up copies of the refused ones, because superseded drawings on the portal cause confusion at validation. And where the refusal followed neighbour objections, consider speaking to the neighbours before you submit.

Repeat applications and the fee position

Two provisions deal with repetition.

Section 70A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows a council to decline to determine an application where a similar application has been refused by the Secretary of State on appeal within the preceding two years and there has been no relevant change in the development plan or in other material considerations. It is used sparingly, and it applies to applications that are essentially the same as the one dismissed.

More useful for a householder is the fee position. The fees regulations allow one further application on the same site, by the same applicant, for development of the same character or description, free of charge, where it is submitted within twelve months of the decision on the earlier application. Conditions apply, including that the earlier application was not itself a free one, so check the current regulations and the council's own guidance before assuming it.

Resubmitting or appealing

Time limits govern the choice. A householder appeal must be lodged within twelve weeks of the date on the decision notice, and most other appeals within six months. Those periods are strict, so decide early rather than spending three months redesigning and then finding the appeal window has closed.

If the design is close, resubmission is usually quicker and the free go makes it inexpensive. If the disagreement is about whether this kind of development belongs here at all, no amount of redesign will settle it and an inspector is the right decision maker.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which documents a resubmission is likely to need, or browse the 66 report types first. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.