Identifying Decision-Critical Failures
Not every weakness in a planning decision carries the same weight. Governance depends on the ability to distinguish background imperfections from failures that are genuinely decision-critical.
What “decision-critical” means
A decision-critical issue is one that goes to the acceptability of the proposal at the point it was determined.
If the issue had been resolved differently, or properly addressed at the time, it could reasonably have affected the outcome.
Background issues versus critical failures
Many planning decisions contain minor procedural imperfections. These may include formatting issues, minor omissions, or matters that sit at the margins of relevance.
Decision-critical failures are different. They relate to matters that decision-makers needed to understand and resolve in order to lawfully reach the decision they did.
Common indicators of decision-critical failure
An issue is more likely to be decision-critical where:
- it concerns a core policy test or statutory requirement
- it affects whether the development is acceptable in principle
- it was relied upon implicitly but not supported by evidence
- it was deferred without a clear or lawful basis
- it is absent or unclear in the recorded reasons
These indicators relate to substance, not presentation.
Why volume is not the same as severity
A large number of minor issues does not necessarily amount to high governance risk.
Conversely, a small number of failures affecting decision-critical matters can significantly undermine the integrity of the decision.
The role of the decision record
Whether an issue is decision-critical is determined by reference to the decision record, not by later explanation.
If the record does not show that the issue was understood, weighed, and resolved, it cannot be assumed that it was safely addressed.
Distinguishing concern from exposure
It is possible to disagree with a decision without identifying a decision-critical failure.
Governance analysis focuses on exposure: whether the decision can be defended by reference to what was recorded at the time, rather than whether the outcome is preferred.
Why this distinction matters
Treating all issues as equally significant obscures the real sources of governance risk.
Clear identification of decision-critical failures allows attention to be focused on the points that genuinely affect the lawfulness and defensibility of the decision.