Should You Buy This Site? How to Assess Planning Risk Before You Commit

The question that gets asked too late

One of the most common conversations we have starts like this:

“We’ve secured a site… just need to get planning through.”

At that point, the risk has already been taken.

In many cases, the key question should have been asked earlier:

Should you buy the site at all?

The reality of planning risk

Not all sites are equal.

Some are:

• Straightforward

• Policy-compliant

• Low risk

Others look promising but carry:

• Hidden constraints

• Weak planning justification

• Limited chance of success

The issue is not always obvious at first glance.

Why this matters more now

With the changes to the planning appeal process from April 2026:

• There is less opportunity to introduce new evidence

• Weak applications are harder to recover

• Early mistakes carry more weight

This means:

Getting the initial decision wrong on a site can be costly and difficult to fix.

What we look at before advising on a site

At TMDP, we approach site assessments differently.

It is not just about whether something could be designed.

It is about whether it is likely to be supported.

1. Policy position (first filter)

We start with:

• Local Plan policies

• Site designations

• Constraints (Green Belt, conservation, etc)

This tells us quickly whether the site is:

• Supported in principle

• Or fundamentally constrained

2. Planning history

Previous applications often tell you everything you need to know.

We review:

• Refusals

• Appeal decisions

• Officer comments

This helps identify:

• Known issues

• Authority stance

• Whether anything has materially changed

3. Appeal decisions (this is the key shift)

This is where things are changing.

We now test sites against:

• Recent appeal decisions

• Inspector reasoning

• Comparable cases

This answers the real question:

How is this likely to be judged, not just how it reads on paper?

4. Viability and use (critical for pubs and commercial sites)

For hospitality and community uses:

• Can the existing use be justified as unviable?

• Is there credible evidence to support change?

Without this, proposals are likely to fail regardless of design quality.

5. Planning balance

Most sites are not black and white.

They sit somewhere in the middle.

The key is understanding:

• What harm arises

• What benefits exist

• Whether those benefits are strong enough

This is where many decisions are won or lost.

The difference between “possible” and “probable”

This is the most important distinction.

Many schemes are technically possible.

Fewer are likely to be approved.

Understanding that difference early allows:

• Better decision-making

• More accurate appraisals

• Reduced risk

Common red flags

There are some recurring indicators that a site may be high risk:

• Heavy reliance on Green Belt arguments

• Significant heritage impact without clear benefit

• No clear viability case for change of use

• Previous refusals with no material change

• Weak access or amenity position

None of these are automatic deal-breakers.

But they do require careful handling.

A better approach

The most effective approach is simple:

Test the planning position before committing.

That means:

• Early strategic advice

• Honest assessment of risk

• Alignment with real-world decisions

Not assumptions.

TMDP final thoughts…….

Planning is not just a technical process.

It is a risk management exercise.

Understanding that before you commit to a site can make the difference between:

• A viable project

• And a costly mistake

📞 Speak to TMDP

If you are considering a site or want a second opinion before proceeding, we are always happy to have an initial discussion.

📞 0116 467 0055

Planning | Heritage | Design | Project Management