Planning Essentials Case Update: when is further consultation required on an amended application?

A planning permission was recently challenged on the basis that (amongst other grounds) the local planning authority acted procedurally unfairly by failing to re-consult affected third parties following the amendment of the application. 

The legal duty to advertise applications

Local planning authorities are required to consult on applications for planning permission.  Article 15 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure Order) 2015 sets out the scope of that duty in relation to publicising planning applications, including that (for most applications) a notice must be displayed at the site for at least 21 days and, for certain applications, an advert must be placed in a newspaper – thereby giving members of the public an opportunity to comment. Article 18 sets out which statutory bodies must be consulted. 

A question of fairness

In 2018 the High Court in the case of R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) considered whether an authority was required to re-consult after changes were made to an application which directly affected the ability of the appellant (who was a leaseholder to the land in question) to make commercial use of the land. The Court held that, on the facts of that case, failure to re-consult had materially prejudiced the appellant and the permission was quashed. The Court made it clear that the decision whether or not to re-consult was a question of fairness. 

The PPG reiterates this and suggests that local authorities should consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted would be deprived of the opportunity to make representations that they may have wanted to make on the amended application.

The facts of the present case

In May 2026 the High Court again had to consider when an authority is required to re-consult, in the case of R (Richard Dixon) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2026] EWHC 1272.

In this case, following receipt of the application, the Council duly consulted the public and statutory consultees. Further to a statutory consultee’s request, the developer amended its application in 2024 by amending the plans to incorporate planting. 

In December 2024, the National Planning Policy Framework was then updated to introduce the concept of the “grey belt”. The applicant subsequently made further amendments to the supporting documents including a revised green belt assessment categorising the site as “grey belt land”.  No additional consultation was carried out, permission was granted and a local resident challenged the decision in the High Court.

The appellant argued that the Council should have re-consulted on the proposition that the site was grey belt land, given that this was an important change and he suffered prejudice due to his lack of expertise. The Council’s response was that the changes amounted merely to supporting text in the application documents, with no increase in the actual scale of the development. The Council considered that the appellant was not prejudiced – he had been aware of the revised green belt assessment and the national policy change and he made representations following the amendments to the application in mid-2025. 

The appellant also argued that the Council should have re-consulted on the changes to the planting, and that the statutory consultee who had first requested amendments would have wanted an opportunity to comment. The Council responded that the statutory consultee had not objected to the original proposal, and the updated proposals were publicised. 

The decision

The Court concluded that the additional planting did not come close to generating a requirement, as a matter of fairness, to re-consult. The Court noted that it is common practice for developers to react to objections by proposing measures designed to overcome them. The Court also pointed out that the appellant was aware of the amended proposals, he was able to respond to them and he was not personally or commercially impacted. The appellant therefore did not suffer material prejudice.

In terms of the changes following the introduction of grey belt, the Court agreed with the Council that this did not change the nature or scope of the application. The Court again noted that the appellant had an opportunity respond. 

The Court therefore dismissed the claim for judicial review on the basis that there was no need to re-consult. 

Key takeaways

When amending a planning application, a developer should consider whether there are any persons who may wish to comment on the changes or who would be prejudiced if they were deprived of the opportunity to comment. Consideration should be given as to whether, in the interests of fairness, it is appropriate to consult those or other persons and allow them to submit representations. 

Applicants should also be mindful as to whether there are any new statutory consultees that need to be consulted. For EIA development, consideration should be given as to whether additional environmental information needs to be submitted and publicised in accordance with the statutory requirements. 

Where there is already a resolution to grant, if any changes give rise to new or different material considerations, applicants should be aware of the potential for the application to be returned to committee.  Applicants should also consider whether they need to agree an extension of time with officers in order that the consultation process can run its course, whilst preserving the right to appeal.