Freedom of Information in Planning: Why It Changes the Outcome, Not Just the Argument

Why FOI matters in planning (procedural reality, not transparency)

Freedom of Information is often misunderstood in planning as a transparency tool — a way to see what an authority has done. In practice, its real value is procedural. FOI determines whether a planning decision or consultation was capable of being fair at the moment it occurred.

FOI allows a precise question to be answered:

What evidence actually existed at the point decision-making power was exercised?

That question sits within public law and natural justice. It is not about planning merits, hindsight, or professional disagreement.

Evidence vs information (the root of the problem)

A frequent source of failure in planning decisions is the inability to distinguish between information and evidence.

Information includes intentions, draft positions, scoping notes, consultation plans, or statements that something will be assessed later.
Evidence consists of completed assessments, analyses, or conclusions that are capable of supporting (or constraining) a planning judgment at the time the decision is made.

Information may describe a process. Evidence is what allows that process to be lawfully exercised.

FOI forces authorities to confront this distinction by asking whether evidence exists at all, rather than whether it was considered “sufficient”.

Absence of evidence vs quality of evidence

Planning debate often focuses on whether evidence is weak, outdated, or contested. That is a planning merits discussion. FOI exposes a more fundamental issue: evidential absence.

Weak or contested evidence still allows decision-makers to exercise judgment.
Non-existent evidence removes the foundation for judgment altogether.

When an authority confirms that it does not hold evidence on a material topic — such as walking safety, cycling safety, road safety, infrastructure capacity, or deliverability — the issue ceases to be about weight or balance.

It becomes a procedural question: was it lawful and fair to proceed without it?

FOI and meaningful consultation

Consultation in planning is governed by principles of procedural fairness. Consultees must be given sufficient information to make intelligent and informed representations.

FOI tests whether that condition was met in reality, not in narrative.

If an authority invites consultation on proposals affecting safety, accessibility, or infrastructure while admitting that no assessments exist in those areas, consultees are being asked to engage with outcomes without access to the inputs that shape them.

That is a natural justice issue. It is not cured by statements that plan-making is iterative or that matters can be addressed later.

The power of FOI admissions

One of the most significant effects of FOI in planning is that it produces institutional admissions.

Officer reports may assert that evidence was “sufficient” or that impacts were “considered”. An FOI response stating that evidence is “not held” removes ambiguity.

It limits later reinterpretation.
It undermines claims that evidence supported a decision or consultation.
It fixes the authority’s position in a form capable of independent review.

FOI responses often carry more weight than committee reports because they are statements of record, not persuasion.

What an FOI admission actually does (the compounding effect)

An FOI admission that evidence is not held does more than confirm absence. It creates a compound procedural effect that is extremely difficult for an authority to unwind.

It admits the evidence does not exist
The authority is no longer arguing about sufficiency, proportionality, or professional judgment. It has confirmed that no assessment, analysis, or concluded material exists on the topic in question. There is nothing to weigh, balance, or rely upon.
It fixes a timestamp of absence
An FOI response is contemporaneous evidence of record-holding. It confirms that, as at the date of the response (and by implication the decision or consultation stage), the authority did not hold the evidence. This anchors evidential absence to a specific point in time.
It forecloses later reliance at Judicial Review
Once absence is fixed to the decision date, any attempt to introduce the evidence later cannot cure the defect. Evidence produced after the decision cannot retrospectively justify it. Introducing post-decision material at Judicial Review highlights, rather than repairs, the procedural failure.

At that point, the authority is no longer defending the quality of its decision. It is attempting to explain why a decision was taken in the absence of material evidence, which is a fundamentally weaker position in public law.

FOI, governance oversight, and inaction

FOI becomes more significant where governance concerns have been explicitly raised.

Where procedural concerns are identified, senior officers are notified, and FOI later confirms evidential absence, any failure to intervene or correct the process becomes part of the governance record.

In these circumstances, FOI does not merely expose missing evidence. It documents institutional inaction in the face of known risk.

Why FOI changes outcomes

FOI succeeds where many planning challenges fail because it reframes the dispute.

Opinion is replaced with record.
Inference is replaced with admission.
Hindsight is replaced with contemporaneous fact.

Once evidential absence is admitted, the burden shifts. The authority must explain why proceeding was fair, rather than the complainant having to prove why it was not.

Conclusion

Freedom of Information is not an auxiliary tool in planning disputes. It is a mechanism that tests whether the procedural foundations of decision-making existed at all.

By anchoring scrutiny to what was held, when it was held, and who relied upon it, FOI exposes consultations and decisions that proceed without evidential support.

In doing so, it moves planning challenges out of disagreement and into administrative justice — where legality and fairness, not planning merits, are decisive.

PGAT

Did You Know?