Common planning mistakes that lead to refusal and how to avoid them

Why good schemes still get refused

One of the most frustrating parts of the planning process is seeing a scheme refused that, on the face of it, should have been acceptable.

In many cases, the issue is not the proposal itself.

It is how it has been presented, justified and structured.

With the changes to the appeal process from April 2026, this becomes even more important.

There is far less opportunity to recover a weak application after submission.

The reality

Across a number of live projects and recent appeal decisions, a consistent pattern is emerging:

Refusals are often driven by avoidable mistakes, not fundamental problems with the scheme.

Understanding these early can make a significant difference.

1. Starting with drawings instead of strategy

This is still the most common issue.

Projects begin with:

• Layouts

• Sketch designs

• Floorplans

Only later is the planning position fully tested.

The result is often:

• A scheme that looks good

• But does not stand up against policy or precedent

How to avoid it

Start with:

• Planning constraints

• Policy position

• Relevant appeal decisions

Then design around that.

2. Weak or unclear planning justification

Many submissions rely too heavily on:

• General policy statements

• Generic wording

• Unsupported conclusions

This is where schemes start to fall apart under scrutiny.

Inspectors are consistently looking for:

• Clear reasoning

• Evidence-based conclusions

• A structured planning balance

How to avoid it

Every key point should answer:

• Why is this acceptable?

• What policy supports it?

• Where has this been accepted before?

3. Underestimating heritage impact

Heritage is one of the biggest areas of refusal.

The issue is rarely just the presence of harm.

It is the failure to properly explain:

• The level of harm

• Why it is justified

• What public benefits arise

How to avoid it

• Be honest about harm

• Clearly define it as less than substantial (where appropriate)

• Set out a strong, evidence-led public benefit case

4. No proper viability evidence (particularly for pubs)

This is critical for hospitality and community assets.

We continue to see applications fail because:

• Viability is assumed, not demonstrated

• Evidence is limited or outdated

• Marketing information is weak

Appeal decisions are clear on this.

Without robust viability evidence, Inspectors are unlikely to support loss of use.

How to avoid it

• Commission proper viability work early

• Ensure marketing evidence is credible and detailed

• Align the planning case with the evidence

5. Weak Green Belt arguments

Green Belt is often approached with:

• A single justification

• A loosely defined benefit

This rarely succeeds.

Inspectors are looking for:

• Clearly defined very special circumstances

• A combination of benefits

• A well-structured planning balance

How to avoid it

Build a layered argument:

• Site-specific benefits

• Wider planning benefits

• Any fallback positions

All clearly set out.

6. Ignoring how similar schemes have been decided

This is becoming more important.

Too many applications are prepared in isolation, without reference to:

• Recent appeal decisions

• Inspector reasoning

• Comparable cases

This limits the strength of the argument.

How to avoid it

• Review relevant appeal decisions early

• Align your justification with real outcomes

• Use precedent to support your position

7. Trying to fix problems after submission

This has always been risky.

From April 2026, it becomes even more so.

There is now limited opportunity to:

• Introduce new evidence

• Strengthen weak arguments

• Reframe the case at appeal

How to avoid it

Treat every application as if it will be tested at appeal from day one.

A more effective approach

At TMDP, our focus is on avoiding these issues before they arise.

That means:

• Starting with strategy, not drawings

• Building clear, evidence-led justification

• Aligning proposals with both policy and precedent

• Ensuring applications are robust at the point of submission

Final thought

Most planning refusals are not inevitable.

They are often the result of:

• Poor structure

• Weak justification

• Or lack of early strategic thinking

Getting those elements right makes a significant difference.

If you are working on a site that is proving challenging, we are always happy to have an initial discussion.

📞 0116 467 0055

Planning | Heritage | Design | Project Management