Common Reasons Planning Decisions Fail
Most failed planning decisions do not fail because the outcome was unpopular. They fail because the decision process becomes exposed: evidence is missing, issues are deferred without a lawful basis, or reasons are not recorded in a defensible way.
What “failure” means in planning governance
In a governance context, a “failed” decision is one that becomes difficult to defend under scrutiny. This can happen through appeal, review, complaint, audit, or other oversight.
Importantly, a decision can be exposed even if it appears reasonable on its merits. Planning governance is concerned with whether the decision was made lawfully, fairly, and on an adequate evidential basis.
1) Decision-critical issues were treated as deferrable
One of the most common causes of exposure is the assumption that unresolved issues can be “dealt with later” through conditions or future detail. In many cases, this is appropriate. In other cases, it creates risk because the issue should have been resolved at the stage being determined.
Where decision-critical matters are deferred without a clear basis, the decision may lack the evidential foundation needed to justify the outcome.
2) Evidence existed, but did not become decision evidence
Large application files can contain substantial technical material. However, evidence only supports a decision if it is carried into the decision in a usable form and relied upon at the point of determination.
Decisions become exposed when important evidence is buried, diluted, or reframed such that it no longer informs the reasoning that is recorded.
3) Policy was referenced, but not engaged with
Planning decisions must be made within a policy framework. A common weakness is superficial policy engagement: policies are listed or quoted, but their operative requirements are not applied to the actual decision issues.
Token policy reference can create a false sense of compliance while leaving decision-critical tests unaddressed.
4) Material consultee positions were not clearly reflected
Technical consultees often provide the most decision-relevant constraints and requirements. Governance risk can arise where consultee positions are summarised in a way that obscures their substance, conditions, or severity.
This risk is heightened when decision-makers rely on brief summaries rather than the underlying correspondence.
5) Assumptions replaced demonstrable support
Decisions become exposed when assumptions substitute for evidence. This may occur where key conclusions are stated without showing the basis for them, or where unresolved uncertainties are treated as if they are already solved.
Governance analysis focuses on whether the decision record demonstrates support, not merely confidence.
6) Reasons were unclear, incomplete, or inconsistent
Decisions must be recorded with reasons that explain how material considerations were weighed. Where reasons are thin, inconsistent, or disconnected from the evidence, exposure increases.
Reason-giving is not a formality. It is the mechanism through which a decision becomes transparent and defensible.
7) Roles blurred at the point of decision
Strong governance depends on clear role boundaries. Exposure can arise where responsibilities become blurred — for example, where decision-makers rely on incomplete framing, or where reporting fails to clearly separate evidence, analysis, and recommendation.
When roles blur, decision integrity becomes harder to demonstrate after the fact.