How to Raise a Planning Complaint the Right Way

A First-Time Public Guide to Raising a Planning Complaint Properly

If you’re reading this, you probably feel strongly about a planning application near you. Something doesn’t sit right — especially the way the council keeps saying things like:

You may never have objected before. You may not know the process. But your instinct is likely correct: those phrases matter.

This guide shows you how to regain control — calmly, methodically, and effectively — without needing planning expertise or sounding angry.

---

First: reset how you think about this

You are not here to:

• argue about whether the development is good or bad
• persuade councillors emotionally
• accuse anyone of wrongdoing

You are here to do something much more powerful:

Planning decisions run on records and evidence, not opinions. Once you understand that, the fog lifts.

---

Why infrastructure deferral is the weak point

Infrastructure (roads, schools, healthcare, drainage, utilities) is not a detail. It is a core planning consideration.

When a council says infrastructure will be:

• dealt with later
• secured by condition
• fixed through future agreements

they are quietly admitting one of two things:

Either way, the committee cannot rely on evidence it did not have at the time of the vote.

You don’t need to say that. You just need to establish whether the evidence existed.

That is where control comes from.

---

The discipline rule (important)

You can feel angry. You must never sound angry.

Anger in emails:

• reduces credibility
• invites defensiveness
• closes doors

Calm questions do the opposite. They force precision.

It is important to understand what you are dealing with. Councils are not set up to readily admit procedural mistakes, gaps in evidence, or decision-stage weaknesses. Doing so can expose them to scrutiny, reputational risk, or legal challenge.

As a result, you should expect responses that:

• reassure rather than explain
• refer to future conditions or processes
• avoid directly answering timing-based questions
• assert robustness without showing the underlying evidence

This is not personal, and it is not a sign that your concern lacks merit. It is simply how public authorities operate when asked to justify decisions already taken.

Your job is not to persuade them emotionally or force an admission. Your job is to stay focused on the record: what evidence existed, and when.

Expect that answers may feel disappointing, incomplete, or evasive at first. That does not mean you have failed. It means the process is working as expected.

---

Step 1: Stop reacting — start checking the record

Before you write anything, look only at:

• the officer report
• the list of supporting documents
• (if available) the committee agenda or minutes

Ask yourself one simple question:

If you mostly see phrases like “indicative”, “condition”, or “later agreement”, that is enough to proceed.

You do not need expert knowledge.

---

Step 2: Use FOI early (this is where control begins)

Freedom of Information is not aggressive. It is not escalation. It is not an accusation.

It is simply how you see what exists.

And crucially, when it existed.

Why FOI matters here

Councils defer infrastructure most often when the evidence:

• is incomplete
• shows funding gaps
• is politically awkward
• or doesn’t exist at decision stage

FOI quietly removes the ability to bluff.

The most important FOI rule

Always ask what existed before the vote.

Not what exists now. Not what is being worked on. What existed at the time the committee decided.

That freezes the evidential moment.

Example FOI (simple and effective)

That’s it. No opinion. No accusation. Just facts.

If the answer is:

• “information not held”, or
• documents dated after the vote

that tells you something important without you having to say a word.

---

Step 3: Raise a calm clarification (in parallel)

At the same time as the FOI, write a short, neutral clarification email.

This is not a rant. This is a control move.

Example wording

Read that carefully.

• No anger
• No conclusions
• No legal threats

But it forces the council to commit to a position.

---

Step 4: Understand what the phrases really mean

When you see:

you are not being told infrastructure is solved.

You are being told it is not decision-ready.

Committees are required to make decisions on the basis of settled evidence, not future intentions.

You don’t need to argue that. You only need to show what evidence existed.

FOI does the heavy lifting.

---

Step 5: Let absence do the work

If FOI shows:

• no infrastructure evidence existed before the vote, or
• evidence was created after the decision

then the issue is no longer opinion.

It becomes a simple procedural fact:

You do not need to use words like “unlawful” or “unjust”. Those are conclusions.

You present the timeline and the record.

That is how decisions get revisited.

---

Step 6: Why this works when shouting doesn’t

Councils can ignore:

• emotional objections
• moral arguments
• long emails about harm

They cannot easily dismiss:

• “information not held at time of decision”
• documented deferral of core evidence
• FOI responses that contradict decision narratives

This approach:

• shifts power back to you
• slows the process down
• forces accountability

All without confrontation.

---

Step 7: Keep the evidence chain intact

One of the most important disciplines is keeping a complete and readable evidence chain.

In practice, councils often respond to each email or query in isolation. This may simply be how their systems work, but the effect is that conversations become fragmented across multiple replies, threads, and time periods.

If you are not careful, this fragmentation makes it harder for anyone else to later understand what was asked, what was answered, and what was not.

To stay in control, assume that everything you write may one day be read by someone who has never seen the case before.

That means:

• keep each email clear and focused on a single issue
• quote or summarise the specific point you are responding to
• retain previous correspondence rather than starting fresh threads
• save copies of all replies, including attachments
• avoid verbal exchanges that leave no record

This is not about volume. It is about continuity.

A complete evidence chain makes it much easier for an independent reader — such as the Ombudsman — to see the full sequence: what was asked, how it was answered, and where clarity was or was not provided.

When the record is clear, you do not need to argue your case. The documents speak for themselves.

---

Step 8: Writing the email (Timing Matters)

A neutral, evidence-focused complaint seeking clarity on infrastructure, transport and viability evidence.

---

A) If the decision has NOT been made yet

(Pre-decision — highest impact)

Purpose of the email

• To stop the committee voting on incomplete evidence
• To force missing infrastructure evidence onto the record
• To justify deferral if evidence does not exist

Public-safe example (pre-decision)

Why this works

• It pressures before the vote
• It makes deferral the safest option
• It creates a record that evidence was queried in time

---

B) If the decision HAS been made

(Post-decision — accountability and control)

Purpose of the email

• To test whether the committee had full evidence at the point of decision
• To establish whether the vote rested on an evidential gap
• To create a clean record for FOI and escalation

Public-safe example (post-decision)

Why this works

• It fixes the evidential moment in time
• It pairs cleanly with FOI
• It reads coherently later to the Ombudsman

---

Final mindset shift (this is the key)

You are not trying to “win an argument”.

You are doing something far more effective:

If it wasn’t, that matters — quietly, structurally, and persistently.

That is how control is regained.

---