Best practice in officer report writing

The best officer reports will assess the merits of an application in a logical sequence that concludes with an argued recommendation.  It should start with facts and evidence, move through to assessment, then a profession judgement on a final recommendation. The concluding recommendation should be based on the most appropriate weight given by the case officer to the relevant policies, issues and evidence. 

It is important that the report clearly articulates both the positive and negative elements of the proposal and the weight given by the case officer on the material considerations.  It should then summarise the planning balance that the case officer considers appropriate before giving a recommendation.  If a recommendation is for refusal then the report should still outline the benefits of the proposal and vice versa for a recommendation to approve. 

The job of a case officer is to gather the evidence, relevant material considerations and the views of the various interested parties to reach a recommendation. Therefore, the most critical part of the report is where the officer uses their professional judgment to assign weight to all the matters under consideration. The quality of the officer report is judged by how clearly, concisely and logically this is set out in the report.

It is important that the case officer clearly explains the views of consultees and public representations. However, it is also important for the case officer to give their own professional judgement on the weight that should be given to the various representations received and then clearly express their recommendation with reasons for this recommendation.

In considering the weight given to different viewpoints, the case officer, as a Planning professional, needs to consider the proposal as a whole in the context of good placemaking and creating sustainable linked communities.

The report must set out what is being proposed and describe the site context. This should not be a laborious description of every element of the development and every feature and dimension of the location. It needs to ensure that the proposal is clearly understood by interested parties and the site's features that are relevant to considering an application. If it is agreed with the applicant that precise numbers (e.g. housing numbers) are unnecessary in the description (for example to avoid difficulties with potential future S73 amendments) then a full explanation should be made in the officer report as to why this is the case to ensure transparency.  In the same way, the description does not necessarily need to outline detailed elements such as the number of bedrooms for each dwelling or the precise number of parking spaces as long as these detailed matters can be explained in the assessment part of the report.

The site description should highlight any key constraints, such as its location within a conservation area or wildlife protection area. It should also explain relevant topography, such as a steeply sloping site or watercourse. However, it does not need to describe every feature within the site and it only needs to describe the location as far as it is relevant to the consideration of the application.

The site history can be significant in the consideration of an application. For example, if previous consent has been granted or refused on the site, this is a key material consideration. Also, if there has been a prior appeal decision, this could be relevant to how the new application will be considered. However, it is not necessary to highlight every decision made on the site. For example, a decision made decades ago under previous legislation and policy framework is unlikely to be relevant unless a previous consent has been commenced and is still ‘live’. Small applications, such as minor householder consents, will likely be irrelevant to a major redevelopment scheme.

It is particularly important that an unambiguous statement is given where the site has been subject to a previous appeal dismissal by the Planning Inspectorate and the current application is recommended for approval.  The report should contain a section setting out how this scheme addresses all the reasons and logic behind the dismissed appeal is set out in the Inspector's decision latter.  Also, the report should explain clearly the consultation and / or notification that has taken place.

Officer reports must highlight consultee responses so the officer can consider the weight given to these responses in their final recommendation.  The decision on who to consult should be reflected in the council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and / or any other protocols established by the council on consultations.

With regard to public notification, a planning authority has certain discretion over how it notifies the public. For example, it has the discretion in most cases to either notify neighbours by letter, put up site notices, or both. It must also publicise some applications in the local newspaper. At its discretion, the planning authority could also carry out wider publicity through the media or events. The applicant does not have to carry out its own publicity (except in very specific circumstances), but it is free to do so if it wishes. Whilst an officer report does not have to explain the publicity arrangements in detail, some councils do. This is helpful as it provides clarity to all interested parties and avoids questions or misunderstandings from the public.

It is also important to say when a consultee has yet to respond. Is it because they have not had time, and the officer feels it is unnecessary to wait for a response? Is it because a consultee considers commenting unnecessary and is happy for the officer to come to a recommendation without their advice? Or has the consultee decided they do not wish to give an opinion? These are all very different motives for not responding and can be significant in understanding how an officer has reached their decision.

Often with large and complex applications, further information and amendments may be sought leading to the need for re-consultation with residents and consultees. Be clear in the report the reason for the additional consultation stage and remember to summarise comments from residents and consultees separately from the original consultation so it is clear how the changes have influenced opinion.

Councils have differing approaches to how they carry out pre-applications. Some councils will treat pre-applications as confidential matters between the planning authority and the applicant. Other councils will make pre-application discussions public at an early stage. Regardless of the approach taken by a council, evidence of pre-application discussions is an important matter for an officer’s consideration of a planning application. Some councils have a “ no negotiation” or limited negotiation approach for live applications and rely on the pre-application process to negotiate changes. Officers should also be consistent in their advice to an applicant at pre-application, and once a live application is submitted. An officer report should clarify whether pre-applications took place and the outcome of these discussions to show how the pre-application discussions have influenced the final decision-making process and to demonstrate the consistency of advice given by officers.

An officer report must set out all the objections and support received on an application. This does not mean reproducing comments word-for-word but ensuring that it is clear which issues are supported and which have objections. However, It is also important to be proportionate in considering these comments. So, for example, the report should make reference to non-planning issues (such as house prices) but then explain that it is not a material planning consideration and spend no more time on it. Conversely, an evidenced objection regarding a key matter should be given considerable attention, with an officer's view on the relevance of this objection in the final consideration of the application.

Case law indicates that it is the materiality of the issue that is most important, rather than the volume of representations received or the individual who raises the concern so this should be reflected in the officer report and case officers should avoid giving additional weight to an individual who they may consider has greater public influence, such as a local politician or other well-known individuals. However, it is also important for the report to articulate the level of public concern and in this context, it may be relevant to say the number of similar representations received. 

Case officers should be mindful of data protection issues and avoid identifying the personal details of individuals.

The bodies defined as statutory consultees for specific planning applications are defined in the Planning Practice Guidance. Whilst all opinions are relevant, the case officer needs to give appropriate weight to statutory consultees, and this should be made clear in the report. The Government identifies statutory consultees to provide specific specialist advice; some can request a call-in by the Secretary of State or delay a decision if their advice is not followed. Therefore, the case officer should ensure that they consider particularly carefully the views of statutory consultees and if they choose to go against the views of the statutory consultee there needs to be cogent and compelling reasons for doing so.

Wording is particularly important for particular subject areas.  For example, with regard to heritage matters, it is important to use the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) phrasing of “substantial harm” and “less than substantial harm” as the difference in harm has particular relevance in the ability for a case officer to weigh the harm against other planning benefits.

Reports should be concise and clear, so the officer should normally summarise key comments rather than reproducing them in full, particularly for long and complex applications. If interested parties have access to the full comments on the public register they should be directed to these comments if they want to read the comments in full. Some councils have made a decision not to publish representations on their website, normally for data protection reasons.  In these instances, the officer report will need to give a more detailed summary of the comments received to ensure transparency. 

Make it clear in the report the weight to be given to the different relevant policies such as the NPPF, Local Plans, Neighbourhood Plans, etc. If the Local Plan is adopted and up-to-date make it clear that substantial weight should be given to these policies. If the Local Plan is out-of-date or at a very early stage in the review process, the report should emphasise the primacy given to the NPPF. The wording used regarding the hierarchy of policy advice will be relevant for any application, so it can easily be embedded into a report template.

The officer report must highlight all the policies that were considered by the officer in reaching their recommendation, even though some policies may be more relevant than others. This avoids the criticism that a case officer has not considered a relevant policy. For example, the Council is likely to have a policy relating to tree protection. The applicant may be leaving the trees in situ and incorporating them within a landscaping scheme, so tree protection has not come up as an objection. However, it is still important for the report to briefly say that there are no adverse impacts on the existing trees, which accords with the relevant policy.

It is very easy for an officer to write a comment in a hurry or use poor phraseology and thus potentially mislead the reader. This could be as simple as inadvertently saying “does not” instead of "does". Alternatively, an officer might need help understanding the comments made or miss a key point due to the volume of correspondence received. You can never eliminate all human error (see "Acceptable errors" section below). Still, it is always helpful for the signing-off officer to sense-check the wording of a report to avoid inadvertently including misleading commentary in the report.

One of the most common errors in drafting that occurs is when officers "cut and paste" from other reports.  Cut and pasting is helpful when officers find very similar scenarios and want to ensure consistency of approach.  However, it is particularly important in such circumstances to read the text carefully to avoid inconsistencies when a second application is received.

An issue with some officer reports is inconsistencies from previous applications on the same site. It is very easy to do this because Planning is not an exact science and a different case officer may be assigned due to staff leaving or other workload pressures. However, the case officer must check the weight given to issues regarding previous decisions for relevant developments. Circumstances may have changed so that the weight may differ, but if this is the case, it should be clearly explained in the report.

Several matters can lead to a challenge about the validity of a planning decision, three of which are highlighted here because they are often missed in officer reports.

The first is the Human Rights Act 1998. The key parts relevant to a planning application are Article 1 of the First Protocol and Article 8 of the Act. The Planning Authority must have given due regard to the applicant's reasonable development rights and expectations balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third-party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance. In reality, this will be achieved through officer training so that officers consider human rights issues as part of their decision-making process and also by stating in the officer report that they have done this. This can be addressed through standard wording embedded in the officer report templates.

The second matter is one of financial considerations. Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that a local planning authority must have regard to local finance considerations as far as it is material i.e. whether it could help to make the development acceptable in planning terms. This would generally be a monetary grant or other financial assistance from the Government or payments that have been received or could be received in payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy. The easiest way to ensure this matter is addressed is by including it as a section in the officer report to prompt the case officer to ask the question. If there are no financial considerations, then that can be stated.

The third matter is the Equality Act 2010. The most relevant part for a planning decision is section 149, which relates to the public sector's equality duty. Planning authorities must have due regard for the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations between different people when considering planning applications. As with the Human Rights Act, this will require the necessary training with case officers to ensure they understand their duty, plus a section, with some standard wording, in the officer report to ensure the officers address it.

Plans, images and photographs are particularly helpful in Planning Committee reports as these reports are aimed at a wider audience and need to be understood by Members of the Planning Committee. However, they are helpful to any officer report as the reports are public documents and will be read by those interested in how the Council has reached its decision. Also, officer reports are often used as part of the Council's evidence at appeal, so including illustrative material will assist the Planning Inspector in their deliberation. The reasons why illustrative material is not included in officer reports usually relate to the compatibility of the software to generate such material and the time pressures on officers. Illustrative material may be unnecessary for very straightforward minor applications with few issues to consider. Still, when a council inserts illustrative material, all interested parties welcome this.

It is particularly important for the officer report to properly consider EIA matters when appropriate. This should be included in a clearly labelled, separate section. The report should include a statement to the effect that the planning authority regards the Environment Statement as sufficient to make a decision based on all the relevant circumstances and that this decision is based on advice from the statutory consultees.  It should also consider clear alternatives that have been considered in reaching this decision. A similar approach is also required when a proposal triggers the need for a Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) 

An officer report must provide a clear recommendation. This is generally at the end of the report after a conclusion so that there is a clear narrative explaining how the recommendation has been reached. To add clarity, some officer reports also place the recommendation at the start of the report, particularly in the case of Planning Committee reports. Reports should also include a reason for the recommendation.