What are the New Evidence Rules?
From 1 April 2026, the Planning Inspectorate will implement a significant procedural shift affecting how evidence may be submitted in most planning appeals in England.
This change in procedure marks a move away from supplementing cases at appeal stage toward a “one chance submission process” model that prioritises evidence and information submission at the Application phase.
Under the new rules, most appeals relating to applications submitted on or after this date will follow the new expedited “Part 1 written representations procedure”.
Importantly, appellants will generally be unable to introduce new evidence for the purpose of the appeal that was not submitted as part of the initial planning application.
Planning Inspectors will now base their decision making on:
- submitted planning application materials
- the Councils decision notice
- delegated/committee reports
- consultee comments
- and representations already submitted.
This represents a major change as it used to be normal practice to introduce additional reports, technical details and revised arguments during the appeal process, and Planning Inspectors would normally have allowed further evidence if warranted, enabling appellants to remedy Council deemed deficiencies and issues in their original submissions.
What is the benefit of the New Approach?
By reducing the ability to present new material for a planning appeal, the process removes lengthy exchanges of evidence and rebuttal. Appeals that have historically taken 6-12 months will now be sped up providing swifter third party decision making for all parties.
Speed of decision making is especially important to realising a project and being able to bring it forward to fruition. We have seen for too long the planning system being bogged down in red rape and inefficiencies.
What should you do if you are looking to appeal after 1 April 2026?
Well, in the first instance gain a review of your refused application by a Full RTPI Chartered Member.
By reviewing what has been submitted against the refusal will enable consideration of whether the Councils decision should be challenged by appeal or if a new planning application is your best route.
We at Clear Architects and Planners carry out such reviews as part of our evaluation stage of a project. We have recently undertaken a review of a project in Mayfield, a lovely historic town in which the applicants planning submission was well below par. Appealing the submission would be a waste of time and money, instead we are applying for a much more refined, designed and planning justified proposal, which will gain a quicker end result to gaining planning permission.
This forms the basis on how best to proceed to give our projects the greatest chance of success. We can appeal the refusal for you or create a new application.
What do the new rules mean when submitting a planning application?
This change in appeal rules should focus those submitting applications to make comprehensive, well informed submissions as part of the planning application process.
To facilitate such an approach, it is vital that new projects gain an initial evaluation of the project to cover:
- the aims and objectives
- the constraints and opportunities
- who and what is required for the planning application.
We have been working in this way for the past 20 years which is why our planning success rate is so high, even on highly complex projects. As we write this, we are working on Listed Buildings, within National Parks, the Green Belt, highly protected ecological sites and tight urban developments.
The intricacy of these types of projects require a team with expertise not just in compiling well structured applications but in knowing what your local planning department requires to get you over the line.
Will the new rules reduce my need for an appeal?
The Planning Inspectorate’s new reform reshapes the planning appeal process and decision making. While the change in process increases the requirement for greater information to be submitted at planning application stage, this should aid more positive outcomes at Council level with reduced need for appeals.
Hopefully this is a route to faster decisions and better planning outcomes.
Accredited by:
.webp)