Resolving Substantive Consultee Findings at Decision Stage

Consultation responses play a central role in planning decision-making. They inform the authority about technical constraints, risks, and requirements that fall outside the expertise of the decision-maker.

However, consultation responses are not decisions. Nor are they conclusions unless their content is properly assessed and resolved within the decision record.

This page examines how consultation responses are often treated as provisional or deferrable, even where they contain substantive findings, and why that approach can result in unresolved decision-stage issues.

The role of consultation responses

Consultation responses are intended to identify matters that require assessment, resolution, or mitigation before a planning decision is taken.

They do not determine the outcome of an application, but they often raise issues that must be addressed if the authority is to reach a lawful decision.

The authority’s task is not to accept or reject consultee views uncritically, but to assess them and reach a concluded position.

When consultation responses are treated as deferrable

A common governance failure arises where consultation responses identifying substantive constraints are treated as matters that can be addressed later.

This often occurs where:

a consultee raises capacity or infrastructure limitations;
the response identifies a current inability to accommodate the proposal;
the issue is framed as capable of future resolution; and
the decision proceeds without assessing whether resolution is actually possible.

In such cases, the response is not assessed as evidence. It is treated as a placeholder.

Consultation responses versus substantive findings

Not all consultation responses are equal. Some express concerns or request further information. Others contain substantive findings based on technical assessment.

Where a statutory or technical consultee identifies an existing capacity constraint, that is not merely an issue to be managed later. It is a finding that must be confronted.

Treating such findings as deferrable risks converting a concluded technical position into an unresolved planning assumption.

Corroboration and cumulative weight

Governance risk increases where multiple consultation responses point in the same direction.

Where one consultee identifies a capacity issue and others raise related concerns, the authority is required to assess the cumulative picture.

Isolated deferral may be defensible. Systematic deferral in the face of corroborated findings is not.

The decision record must show how the authority reconciled those responses with its conclusion.

Why the issue is often missed at committee

Planning committees are not expected to reanalyse consultation responses in detail. They rely on officer reports to identify which issues have been resolved and which remain outstanding.

Where a report summarises consultation responses as matters capable of being addressed later, members may reasonably proceed on the basis that the issue has not been determinative.

The governance issue arises where the underlying responses, read in full, indicate a substantive barrier rather than a deferrable matter.

Deferral versus resolution

Deferring engagement with a consultation response is not the same as resolving it.

Resolution requires the authority to determine:

whether the issue identified exists;
whether it is capable of mitigation;
whether mitigation is achievable within the proposal; and
whether the proposal remains acceptable as a result.

Absent that determination, reliance on deferral leaves the decision incomplete.

Why this matters in public law

Public law requires authorities to take consultation responses into account and to assess their implications.

Where responses identifying substantive constraints are deferred rather than resolved, the decision may be vulnerable because:

decision-critical matters were left unresolved;
evidential sufficiency was assumed rather than demonstrated; or
reasons do not explain how the consultee findings were addressed.

The issue is procedural, not one of deference to consultees.

Relationship to other governance failures

Mischaracterisation of consultation responses often precedes other procedural failures.

Unresolved consultee findings may be unlawfully deferred.
Assumed resolution may mask evidential insufficiency.
Failure to explain engagement may result in inadequate reasons.

In this way, consultation handling provides an early signal of decision-stage risk.

What this analysis does not suggest

This analysis does not suggest that consultation responses must be followed, nor that officers or members disregard them.

It recognises that consultation responses must be weighed, balanced, and contextualised.

The focus is on whether substantive findings were assessed and resolved, not on how much weight was attributed to them.

The core question

Did the authority resolve the substance of the consultation responses, or were they treated as matters to be addressed later?

Where substantive findings are deferred rather than resolved, the decision may rest on assumption rather than lawful assessment.

PGAT

Did You Know?