When does a planning application need to be re-consulted on?

Once a planning application has been submitted, local planning authorities (LPAs) are required by article 15 of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) to undertake a formal period of public consultation for 21 days and to comply with minimum requirements for publicity.  Following that stage, LPAs must consider all valid comments submitted within the deadline before a final decision is made. There are similar provisions under Article 5G of the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 regulation 5 for permissions in principle, regulation 5A of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area Regulations 1990 for listed buildings and Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for permitted development. 

As applications can be amended following validation, the question often arises as to whether further publicity and consultation is necessary at that stage. The planning practice guidance sets out that it is up to the LPA to consider whether, without re-consultation, any of those who were entitled to be consulted on the application would be deprived of the opportunity to make representations on the amended material. The High Court has recently considered the approach taken by an LPA to this in R (Richard Dixon) v Wakefield Metropolitan District Council [2026] EWHC 1272.

Wakefield Metropolitan District Council (the Council) had granted planning permission for a solar farm on green belt land on 7 August 2025 after amendments relating to additional planting and screening were made to the application by the developer. This followed concerns raised by a local resident about the visual and heritage impacts of the scheme. The developer also provided additional material addressing the introduction of "grey belt" policy in the NPPF. The local resident commenced judicial review proceedings, on the basis that the Council should have reopened the consultation as the changes were significant and contentious. The parties to the claim referred to the decision in R (Holborn Studios Ltd) v London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) as authority for an LPA being required to deal with amendments fairly and this requiring consultation on important new supporting material. This judgment considered and doubted the well-known judgment in Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1980] 10 WLUK 258 which set out that if changes were made to a scheme during an appeal (rather than at the application stage), they would only be permitted if they did not change the substance of a scheme.

The High Court considered that the amendments made did not change the scale or nature of the development and that there was no procedural unfairness or material prejudice to the claimant:

• It noted that it is commonplace for developers to respond to objections by proposing measures to overcome them. The planting material was placed on the Council’s website and available for interested parties to view and comment on, and the claimant had made further representations on it.   The revised proposals did not directly, personally or commercially impact the claimant so no material prejudice was suffered;
• Turning to the updated planning policy context, this made the grant of permission easier to justify but did not change the nature or scope of the scheme. The claimant was able to respond to the representations with knowledge of the changed policy and the Council was entitled to apply the updated policy in its determination of the application.

The Court dismissed the challenge. This judgment serves as an important reminder of the principles behind re-consultation:

• Fairness is key, and parties need to be given the opportunity to comment where material changes are made to a scheme;
• For a claim to succeed on the ground that procedural unfairness has arisen as a result of the failure to re-consult, evidence of material prejudice to the claimant needs to be provided. 

Given the recent changes made to the written representations appeals process for applications submitted after 1 April 2026, and the reduced opportunity to make changes at the appeal stage, it is important that applicants consider the scope of changes being made during the application stage. A pragmatic approach should be taken to liaising with the LPA in relation to the potential requirement for re-consultation, bearing in mind the above principles. If you would like to discuss a strategy for making amendments to a scheme, please do get in touch with Alex or me.