The Government announced yesterday, 25th June 2025, upcoming changes to the Written Representation Appeal (Written Reps) process, aimed and simplifying and streamlining this form of appeal which currently accounts for over 90% of all planning appeals (the remainder being determined via Informal Hearing or Public Inquiry).

The current Written Reps procedure is divided into two parts, with Part 1 being an expedited procedure for appealing the refusal of householder, advertisement and minor commercial applications (and/or amendment of conditions attached thereto), and Part 2 covering all other types of appeal. Under the proposed changes, the scope of Part 1 will be broadened to include all appeals against the refusal of planning permission or reserved matters, the imposition of conditions on approvals and the refusal of prior notification or prior approval. Whilst not set out in the initial guidance note, it is assumed that this must be at the discretion of the Inspector, who can still decide whether an appeal should proceed with the ‘normal’ Part 2 Written Reps procedure (or via either of the other 2 routes). 

The main change to Part 1 itself, is that appeals falling into that category will be decided by the Inspector on the basis of the information previously submitted in support of the application, with seemingly no opportunity for the appellant (or LPA to that matter) to submit any additional evidence. Only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ will new evidence be allowed. There will be no final comments stage and further comments from interested parties will not be accepted. 

The appellant will only be required to submit:

-a copy of their application

-the notice of the local authority’s decision and

-a brief statement responding to the LPA’s decision and why they disagree

One wonders how ‘brief’ these supporting statements will need to be, as appellants will always want the opportunity to respond to reasons for refusal and comments made in the case officers report, particularly where these relate to previously unknown concerns which would not have been covered in the original application submission. It is assumed that a word limit will be imposed, otherwise these ‘brief statements’ would likely run to a full Statement of Case. 

Whilst streamlining and accelerating the appeals process should be supported, given the proposed limited information required to make a part 1 appeal, this could well lead to a significant increase in appeals as a cost effective ‘shot to nothing’ following receipt of a refusal.