LPA Profile

What we hold on a single planning authority: appeal behaviour, what they refuse on, which policies they cite, and how current their local plan is. For the national league table and 47-year statistical history, see Council Performance. New: which refusal reasons survive appeal here — measured from real Inspectorate decision letters.

Bath and North East Somerset Council

GSS E06000022 · Portal: custom (untested) · council register

Applications we hold
2,469
2025-01-06 – 2026-10-06
Refusal rate (our sample)
2.1%
52 of 2,469 — a sample, not the register
Appeals overturned
27.21%
80 allowed of 339 appeals
Local plan age
—
adoption date not published

Official statistics — is development moving through the system?

MHCLG quarterly planning returns (PS1/PS2), last 4 quarters 2025 Q3 to 2026 Q2, and the government's latest Housing Delivery Test. These are the authority's own statutory returns, not our scrape.

Applications received
1,845
in the window
Applications decided
1,748
in the window
Approval rate
94.5%
1,651 granted, 97 refused · national median refusal 11.6%
Refusal rate rank 7 of 63 unitary authorities (1 = fewest refusals) · peer median 10.6%
Decided within time
68.9%
rank 288 of 307 reporting authorities · national median 91.4%
Rank 58 of 63 unitary authorities · peer median 90.6%

Peer ranks compare only unitary authorities with more than 50 decisions in the window, the same floor as the national rank. A rank among peers is the fairer read: types of authority carry very different caseloads.

Performance by development type
TypeDecisionsApprovedIn time
Major2491.7%50.0%
Minor40988.3%71.2%
Other1,31596.4%—
of which householder77197.1%85.7%
"In time" = within the statutory period or an agreed extension, excluding prior approvals. "Other" covers everything that is neither major nor minor; householder figures are measured against the 8-week period.
Applications through the system
Last 8 quarters held
02745482024 Q3: 442 received2024 Q3: 473 decided2024 Q32024 Q4: 473 received2024 Q4: 469 decided2025 Q1: 542 received2025 Q1: 398 decided2025 Q2: 512 received2025 Q2: 548 decided2025 Q3: 441 received2025 Q3: 488 decided2025 Q4: 428 received2025 Q4: 401 decided2026 Q1: 502 received2026 Q1: 380 decided2026 Q2: 474 received2026 Q2: 479 decided2026 Q2
▬ received   ▬ decided
Housing Delivery Test
HDT 2025 measurement, homes delivered against requirement over 2022/23 to 2024/25
92%
Action plan

Delivery 85–94%: the authority must publish an action plan. No presumption or buffer consequence.

Where these figures come from. Each dataset below is the publisher's own file, loaded unchanged; rows are matched to this authority by its ONS code (E06000022). Missing values are shown as "—" and are never estimated or filled from another period.
DatasetPublisherCovers this authorityLoadedOfficial source
Planning application decisions (PS2)MHCLG1996 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (121 quarters)25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationallyLive tables
Planning application flow (PS1)MHCLG1996 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (121 quarters)25 Oct 2026 · 42,861 rows nationallyLive tables
Housing Delivery Test 2025MHCLG2022/23 to 2024/2518 Aug 2026Measurement
Open Government Licence v3.0. The MHCLG tables are reloaded every Sunday; the loaded date is the last successful run. Full 47-year history and national ranking →

How this council decides

Measured against the published determination target on 1,744 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 57 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).

55%
before deadline
(4+ days before target)
31%
on deadline day
(final 3 days)
14%
late
(after the target)
58
average days
valid date to decision

This authority reliably determines within the statutory target. If yours is drifting past it, that is unusual here and worth querying.

Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided

Submitted (n=1,744) Validated (n=1,744) Decided (n=1,744)
Mon
28.3%
26.4%
19.9%
Tue
21.2%
21.6%
28.1%
Wed
16.9%
18.2%
20.2%
Thu
16.5%
17.4%
21.7%
Fri
17%
16.3%
10%

An even working week is 20% a day. Amber marks a day carrying 26% or more. Submitted is the date the council received the application; validated is the date it was made valid and the clock started. All three columns use the same applications, so they can be read across.

By application type

TypeDecisionsBefore deadlineOn deadline dayLateAverage days
Trees 56678%18%4%34
Full 55045%45%10%72
Heritage 18525%19%56%95
Conditions 14655%25%19%73
Outline 11453%43%4%45
Amendment 11256%33%11%40
Advertising 4018%58%25%69

What "after the target" means. Published data cannot distinguish an agreed extension of time from a target that was simply missed — both appear the same way. This measures when the decision was issued relative to the statutory target, and nothing more. Deadline data comes from the council's own published determination target, captured where its portal exposes it (Idox councils and the London Datahub).

Development plan

Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy
Adoption date not published in the national register · plan period 2011-01-01–2029-01-01
Plan documents

National statistics for this authority →

Councils with data on file

Charnwood (3929) Leeds (3678) Dorset (3579) Buckinghamshire (3492) Bromley (3100) Barnet (2921) Durham (2838) Winchester (2559) BCP (2511) Croydon (2494) Bath (2469) Ealing (2419) Westminster (2278) Cotswold (2200) Bradford (2185) Dudley (2170) Islington (2163) Brent (2153) Newcastle upon Tyne (2124) Cornwall (2084) Chelmsford (2081) Carmarthenshire (2023) Lambeth (2022) Bexley (2013)

On the numbers. The refusal rate, officers and agents here are computed from the applications PlanningCore has collected for this authority — for most councils that is a recent sample rather than the full register, and the date range above tells you which. The appeal overturn rate comes from Planning Inspectorate decisions and covers a much longer period. Use the national statistics page for complete, official volumes.

About this tool: LPA Profile

Deep-dive authority analysis — approval rates by type, refusal reason clustering, appeal overturn rates, average decision times, and strictness rankings.

When to use it

Use to understand how your LPA behaves. Every council has different tendencies — some are design-focused, some are policy-strict, some are more pragmatic.

Policy and guidance it draws on

MHCLG planning statistics, appeal decision analysis

Part of Authority Intelligence

Use these tools to understand how your Local Planning Authority behaves — what they approve, what they refuse, how often appeals succeed, and what strategy gives you the best chance. This is behavioural intelligence, not just policy research.

Related tools
Planning Risk Score™NPPF TrackerCommittee PredictorCommittee vs Delegated AnalysisHousing SupplyPre-App Strategy BuilderStrategy SimulatorCase Officer Intelligence

Guidance to help you prepare — not formal planning advice. Check the current policy text and your council's local plan before relying on it.

Ask Planning Agent
🧭Guide me