In English planning law, the concept of “precedent” does not operate in the same way as in judicial case law. While decisions of the courts can bind future rulings, decisions made by local planning authorities (LPAs) or even by the Planning Inspectorate do not create binding precedent contrary to popular belief and as stated within many planning submissions across the country. Past decisions can, however, still be influential and are often referred to in support of current applications – consistency is key to maintaining confidence in the system.
The principle that there is no binding precedent in planning arises because each planning application must be determined on its own merits, according to the statutory framework—primarily the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—and the development plan for the area. This principle was confirmed in case law such as Dorset County Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1991], where the court held that planning decisions are fact-sensitive and context-specific.
That said, planning history is not irrelevant. LPAs and Inspectors must have regard to consistency in decision-making, particularly where the circumstances of a new application closely mirror those of a previous one – the approach to determination and application of policies is important. The courts have made it clear that a failure to take similar decisions into account can result in a decision being considered irrational or unjustified. In North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1993], it was held that consistency is important in the exercise of planning judgment, and that previous decisions, while not binding, must be given proper weight and consideration where relevant.
Applicants frequently refer to past approvals on neighbouring or comparable sites as material considerations, particularly where similar policies and local conditions apply. LPAs must consider whether differences between the applications justify different outcomes. If not, the authority risks a finding of unreasonable or inconsistent decision-making, which could be subject to judicial review. Moreover, Inspectors often refer to previous appeal decisions. While not binding, such decisions can be persuasive, particularly where the policy context and factual circumstances align.
In practice, therefore, while there is no formal doctrine of stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent – to stand by things decided (Latin)) in planning, the weight given to earlier decisions can, in some cases, create a quasi-precedential effect. The planning system values transparency, consistency, and fairness, and decision-makers must be prepared to explain and justify deviations from established approaches.
Overall, therefore, whilst English planning law does not recognise strict legal precedent in the determination of planning applications, previous decisions—particularly on similar facts and within the same policy context—can and often do influence outcomes. This fosters consistency without undermining the requirement to assess each case on its individual merits.