Guide to Written Representation Planning Appeals Following April 2026 Reforms
A detailed guide to the April 2026 changes to written representation planning appeals in England — what the Part 1 procedure means for homeowners, landowners and developers, and why your original application now has to do all the work.
PLANNING APPEALS
Andrew Ransome
8/18/20267 min read
The New April 2026 Rules for Written Representation Planning Appeals:
From 1 April 2026, the way most planning appeals in England are decided has fundamentally changed.
If your planning application was submitted on or after that date and is later refused, the planning appeal that follows will very likely be dealt with under a new, tightly constrained procedure. One that, in most cases, no longer allows you to add anything to the planning case you already made.
This guide sets out exactly what has changed, why it matters, and what it means practically if you are considering a planning application — or are already sitting with a refusal — under the new planning appeal regime.
Why the planning appeal process has changed
The planning appeal reform is set out in The Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It applied to planning applications submitted from 1 April 2026 onwards.
The stated aim is to speed up the planning appeals system and reduce its administrative burden. It now pushed local planning authorities and applicants to get the evidence right at the planning application stage rather than treating an appeal as a second bite at the cherry.
In practice, this means the Inspectorate has split the written representations procedure — historically the route for the large majority of planning appeals — into two distinct tracks:
a new expedited "Part 1" procedure, and the existing,
more familiar "Part 2" procedure.
Understanding which one your appeal will follow, and what that means for your evidence, is now the single most important strategic question at the point of refusal.
The Part 1 procedure: the new default
For applications submitted on or after 1 April 2026, most planning appeals made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 will follow the Part 1 procedure.
This covers, among others, appeals against refusal of planning permission, refusal of prior approval, refusal of a planning application to approve reserved matters, refusal of a section 73 condition variation, and refusal of permission in principle or technical details consent.
The defining feature of Part 1 is strict: the Planning Inspector will only consider the material that was already before the local planning authority when it made its decision.
That means the planning application itself, its supporting plans and reports, any interested-party comments received at application stage, the decision notice, the committee minutes and officer report, the appeal form, and the council's appeal questionnaire.
There is no statement of case.
There is no opportunity to submit a new technical report, an amended drawing, or a fresh piece of expert evidence to answer the reasons for refusal.
The appeal form itself gives you space to explain why you disagree with the decision, but that section is explicitly not an opportunity to introduce new material. Anything that reads as new evidence or a new argument may simply be disregarded.
Third-party representations follow the same logic. Anyone who commented at application stage will have those comments forwarded automatically to the Inspector, but there is no further opportunity for neighbours or other interested parties to comment at the planning appeal stage under Part 1.
The Planning Inspectorate has built in a narrow exception for a genuine material change in circumstances arising after the council's decision. For example, a relevant change in development plan or national policy, a material court judgment, a new EIA screening requirement, or a relevant decision on another application or appeal.
Outside those categories, new evidence will not be accepted, and if you believe additional information would overcome the reasons for refusal, the guidance is clear: submit a fresh planning application rather than pursue an appeal on the strength of material the council never saw.
The timetable reflects how streamlined this route now is.
Once the Planning Inspectorate confirms an appeal is suitable for Part 1, the local planning authority has just five working days from the start date to send its questionnaire, the application documents, and the committee minutes and officer report.
The Planning Inspector then typically carries out a site visit, and the decision follows — usually without any further exchange between the parties.
The Part 2 procedure: broader, but still constrained
Certain appeal types fall outside Part 1 by definition and follow the Part 2 written representations procedure instead.
These include non-determination appeals, listed building consent appeals, and discontinuance notice appeals, along with any Part 1-eligible appeal the Planning Inspectorate decides should be handled differently.
Part 2 retains a more familiar structure:
the appellant submits a full statement of case,
the council has five weeks to respond with its own,
interested parties can make representations within that same five-week window, and
both main parties get a further two weeks to comment on what has been submitted.
Importantly, though, the same underlying discipline applies — the guidance is explicit that submissions "should not normally include new evidence or additional technical data not previously seen by the LPA," and an appellant who tries to introduce new material that could reasonably have been anticipated at application stage risks a costs award against them.
Which procedure will apply to you, and why it's decided so early
The Planning Inspectorate — not the appellant or the council — decides which procedure a planning appeal follows, though both the appellant and the council can indicate a preference and reasoning.
This decision is made close to the outset, and while the Planning Inspectorate keeps it under review, it will only move an appeal from Part 1 to Part 2, a hearing or an inquiry in limited circumstances.
Where that does happen, the appellant is typically given just two weeks to submit further material such as a statement of case — a tight window to build a case that would normally have taken far longer to prepare properly.
Knowing in advance which track a refusal is likely to fall into — and preparing the planning application, from the outset, on the assumption that no further evidence will ever be admitted — is now central to planning appeal strategy rather than an afterthought.
The practical consequence: "submit once, submit right"
The Planning Inspectorate's own framing of this reform is that it should encourage "a full body of evidence to be provided at application stage."
That is the correct way to read the practical effect of these changes.
Under the previous system, gaps in a heritage statement, a weak transport assessment, or an underdeveloped design justification could often be patched up at a planning appeal, either through a statement of case or supplementary technical evidence.
Under Part 1, that safety net has effectively been removed for the majority of planning appeals.
This has several knock-on effects worth understanding clearly:
Pre-application engagement carries more weight than ever. Identifying likely objections and addressing them before a planning decision is made is now the only reliable opportunity to do so, since there is very limited scope to respond to a reason for refusal after the fact.
The application documents are also, in effect, the appeal documents. Every technical report, every drawing, every paragraph of supporting text needs to be capable of standing on its own at planning appeal stage — because it will be doing exactly that, without the chance for elaboration.
Committee minutes and officer reports carry increased significance. Where an application goes to committee against an officer's recommendation, the clarity of the minutes recording the reasons for that decision becomes part of the evidence base the Inspector will rely on.
A poorly minuted committee decision can leave an appellant, and the council, without a clear picture of the case to be argued or answered.
Costs risk has shifted. Under Part 2, and by clear implication under the Planning Inspectorate's overall approach, introducing new evidence that could reasonably have been submitted earlier is treated as unreasonable behaviour capable of attracting a costs award — not just a wasted opportunity.
Non-determination appeals retain more flexibility. Because planning appeals against a council's failure to determine an application within its statutory deadline fall under Part 2 rather than Part 1, there is, in principle, more scope to develop a fuller case — a distinction worth understanding before ruling that route out.
Lessons for homeowners, landowners and developers
The reform rewards preparation and penalises anyone who submits a planning application expecting to negotiate or refine it after the fact.
A few points are worth taking away regardless of the scale of your project:
Treat the original application as your one opportunity to make the full case — because for most planning appeal types, it now is.
Use pre-application advice properly, particularly on anything contentious, borderline on policy, or likely to attract objection, since there is no longer a reliable route to resolve those issues after refusal.
If a reason for refusal genuinely can be answered with new information, a fresh application is now very often the faster and more reliable route than an appeal.
Where a planning appeal is the right course, get the procedural question — Part 1 or Part 2 — right at the outset, since it determines what can and cannot be argued.
Committee-level decisions deserve particular care: clear reasoning recorded at the point of refusal protects your position at appeal, whichever side of the decision you are on.
Getting the planning policy case, the evidence base and the presentation right before a planning decision is made is now the difference between a viable planning appeal and no meaningful route forward at all.
Need to Appeal a Planning Decision?
If you are preparing a planning application, or have received a planning refusal and need decided whether a planning appeal is the right course, I'm happy to discuss your project.
Andrew Ransome MRTPI - Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
About me
Andrew Ransome is a Planning Director and a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), with more than two decades of experience in town planning.
He specialises in delivering strategic planning solutions for complex developments across both rural and urban environments, helping clients navigate planning challenges and unlock development opportunities. Connect with Andrew on Linkedin.
Planning Appeal Information
Planning Appeal Successes
Get in touch for planning advice: Email: andrew@andrewransome.co.uk
© 2026. All rights reserved.
The content on this website is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute planning or legal advice. Planning policy, legislation, and case law change over time, and every planning matter should be assessed on its own merits. No responsibility is accepted for any loss or action taken in reliance on the content of this site. The projects, planning applications and appeals presented on this website reflect professional work undertaken by, or involving me, throughout my career, including work undertaken in both my current and previous employment positions.