Accelerating the planning appeals process: unintended consequences

The government is rolling out what it calls a faster, more efficient planning appeals process which will allegedly benefit everyone and will, in its words, reduce unnecessary constraints. It will also encourage the ‘submit once, submit right’ – providing the complete picture at application stage.

But is there a danger that the speeding up of appeal decisions will result in a series of unintended consequences which will simply add further delays to other aspects of the planning system, rather than tackling existing ones?

Significant alterations

Starting 1 April 2026, significant changes will take place in planning appeals. The expedited written representation process (Part 1) will apply to more appeals, allowing no new materials to be submitted at the appeal stage. Additionally, third parties will not be permitted to comment during the appeal process.

The changes aim to enhance predictability and speed up the processing of planning appeals. This departs from the previous system, where both developers and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) could submit new evidence throughout the appeal process. Consequently, developers must adjust their submissions, while LPAs need to rethink and review their processes.

The key question remains, however: will these changes delay the submission and determination of planning applications?

New guide and regulations

The proposal to broaden the use of the expedited written representations appeal procedure was included in the public consultation, An accelerated planning system, which ran from 6 March to 1 May 2024.

As a result of this consultation, the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) (Amendment and Saving Provision) Regulations 2026, ‘the 2026 Regulations’), along with a new procedural guide from the Planning Inspectorate (‘the Guide’), were made and published on 12 February 2026.

The government outlines in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the 2026 Regulations the reasons that these changes are deemed necessary. Similar to other planning reform initiatives, the main motivations for adopting these measures include reducing unnecessary burdens, streamlining processes, and accelerating planning appeal decisions.

Effectively, these changes aim to facilitate and speed up the delivery of homes.

Currently, any appeals against refusals to grant planning permission or disputed conditions, etc, are submitted to the Secretary of State and handled by the Planning Inspectorate. Most cases are resolved through written representations, while more complex matters – those requiring discussion or cross-examination, for example – proceed to hearings or inquiries.

There are two procedures for written representations: an ‘expedited’ one for simpler appeals, such as householder and minor commercial cases, and a ‘standard’ one for everything else. This is set to change soon.

Expedited written representations

So what will change? The Guide clarifies that most of the appeals mentioned below for applications submitted on or after April 1, 2026, will follow the expedited written representations procedure (Part 1), although the Inspectorate may transfer an appeal to another procedure if needed.

The following appeals will be falling under the expedited written representations process:

• Refusals of planning permissions
• Grants of planning permissions with disputed conditions
• Refusals of prior approvals
• Refusals of advertisement consents
• Refusals of applications for reserved matters
• Refusals to modify or remove conditions under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
• Refusals for planning permissions for developments already completed under s73A of the Act
• Appeals against permissions in principle or refusal of consent to technical details.

The Guide also provides that the following appeals will still be determined under the standard written representations process (Part 2):

• Appeals against the LPA’s failure to determine a planning application within the time limit for doing so (“Non-determination” appeals)
• Appeals in relation to applications for Listed Building Consent
• Appeals in relation to a discontinuance notice.

Finally, it is clarified in the Guide that in relation to “appeals against the LPA’s refusal of a biodiversity gain plan, whilst eligible to proceed under part 1, will usually follow the part 2 procedure”.

The above changes mean that approximately 95% of planning appeals arising from applications submitted after 1 April 2026 will be processed expeditiously, relying solely on the original material submitted to the LPA, including the planning application, the decision notice, committee reports, the appeal form, and the LPA’s appeal questionnaire. New evidence will only be considered if it pertains to major changes in planning policy, case law, or new EIA Regulations requirements.

In addition, third parties will only be able to comment during the planning application process, without being able to submit comments during the expedited written representations appeal procedure, unless permitted by the Inspector.

While there are no amendments concerning Section 106 Agreements, an executed and certified copy of the planning obligation – whether in the form of a unilateral undertaking or a bilateral agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 – is still required to be submitted at the time the appellant lodges the appeal.

No last-minute changes

Will the new system ensure a more streamlined, efficient planning appeal system? Undoubtedly yes. The inadmissibility of new evidence at the appeal stage for the vast majority of appeals will require the appellants to plan and present a complete case upfront, reducing the submission of late evidence and last-minute additions.

The new focus on submissions made at the planning application stage means there will be a shift away from appellants using planning appeals to address gaps in applications, or to refine proposed schemes.

This is something LPAs have been supportive of for some time, and may improve predictability for LPAs when determining the applications.

And what about the planning applications?

Might the changes delay the submission and determination of planning applications? Possibly. For applicants, without understanding the LPAs’ and other third parties’ reactions to a proposal, it becomes increasingly challenging to assess their case from the outset. Many planning applications undergo significant changes after the statutory consultation process, during which various consultees and third parties provide feedback.

The statutory consultation occurs only after the submission and validation of the planning application, together with other supportive documents such as planning statements, design and traffic assessments, drawings, etc.

The new emphasis on having a complete case prepared in advance may lead applicants to be more hesitant to submit planning applications without first engaging with the LPAs through pre-application meetings or conducting non-statutory consultations with relevant consultees. This approach could delay the submission of planning applications, requiring LPAs to allocate additional time and resources.

After validation, any evidence gaps must be addressed early, as they cannot be resolved at the appeal stage. Both applicants and LPAs may take time to resolve issues, leading to increased requests for extensions of the statutory time limits to address them. This may, in turn, cause additional delays in determining planning applications.

In a different scenario, if agreement cannot be reached between the applicant and the LPA it is likely that more appeals for non-determination are submitted in which the appellants will be given the opportunity to present new materials to support their cases.

Furthermore, during statutory consultations, LPAs may adopt a more precautionary approach to ensure third parties have been given opportunities to comment, thereby reducing the risk of challenges by third parties who miss the opportunity to participate at the application stage.

It is clear that, due to the expedited process, the reports and decision notices from the LPA will become increasingly important. They need to accurately and comprehensively reflect the LPA's case. However, the position becomes even more challenging in appeals arising from the Planning Committee’s refusal against the recommendation of the planning officer. In these situations, the officer’s report may lack the necessary information to support the authority’s case in an appeal.

Consequently, to ensure that the reasons for refusal are well-defined, and that the council’s case is presented effectively before the application is determined, LPAs may choose to defer the matter to the next committee meeting as a matter of course. This deferral can delay the consideration of the planning application and, subsequently, the submission of the planning appeal.

Finally, the Guide recommends that, in cases where amending the application can resolve the LPA’s refusal grounds, the applicant submits a new planning application rather than appealing. However, this clearly has the potential to lead to delays and increased costs which could have been avoided with a different appeal procedure.

Conclusion

The expansion of the expedited written representations procedure to the majority of planning appeals marks a significant move toward a more streamlined and disciplined appeals process. By prioritising fully prepared submissions and limiting the introduction of new information at the appeal stage, the reforms are designed to speed up appeal decisions and provide greater certainty for everyone involved.

While the appeal process will benefit from the proposed amendments, it is unclear whether the same improvements will apply to the application system. Given the unpredictability of how LPAs and third parties will respond to planning proposals, applicants may need additional time to gather all the necessary information for their submissions.

Additionally, LPAs might require more time to thoroughly review these applications, ensuring that all evidence gaps are addressed, and that all comments are considered before making a decision.

The acceleration of planning appeal processes is a positive development. However, if this improvement may have the unintended consequence of negatively impacting the submission or the determination of planning applications, it will need to be addressed, and possibly re-evaluated.

Chrisa Tsompani is a Partner at Davitt Jones Bould.