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.

Chelmsford Borough Council

GSS E07000070 · Portal: idox (ok) · council register

Applications we hold
2,081
2018-04-27 – 2026-10-29
Refusal rate (our sample)
8.7%
181 of 2,081 — a sample, not the register
Appeals overturned
26.2%
98 allowed of 415 appeals
Local plan age
6.4 yr
adopted 2020-05
The adopted plan is 6.4 years old. Where housing policies are out of date, NPPF policies S3-S5 may engage the presumption. <a href="local_plan_monitor.php">Check the plan position</a>.

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
1,265
in the window
Applications decided
1,209
in the window
Approval rate
87.1%
1,053 granted, 156 refused · national median refusal 11.6%
Refusal rate rank 102 of 164 district councils (1 = fewest refusals) · peer median 11.4%
Decided within time
89.9%
rank 180 of 307 reporting authorities · national median 91.4%
Rank 98 of 164 district councils · peer median 91.9%

Peer ranks compare only district councils 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
Major2290.9%66.7%
Minor30281.1%79.9%
Other88589.0%—
of which householder72990.0%93.5%
"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
01983962024 Q3: 311 received2024 Q3: 317 decided2024 Q32024 Q4: 303 received2024 Q4: 312 decided2025 Q1: 396 received2025 Q1: 294 decided2025 Q2: 297 received2025 Q2: 386 decided2025 Q3: 303 received2025 Q3: 308 decided2025 Q4: 300 received2025 Q4: 303 decided2026 Q1: 343 received2026 Q1: 307 decided2026 Q2: 319 received2026 Q2: 291 decided2026 Q2
▬ received   ▬ decided
Housing Delivery Test
HDT 2025 measurement, homes delivered against requirement over 2022/23 to 2024/25
110%
No consequence

Delivery at or above 95%: no HDT 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 (E07000070). Missing values are shown as "—" and are never estimated or filled from another period.
DatasetPublisherCovers this authorityLoadedOfficial source
Planning application decisions (PS2)MHCLG1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 quarters)25 Oct 2026 · 68,583 rows nationallyLive tables
Planning application flow (PS1)MHCLG1979 Q2 to 2026 Q2 (189 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 871 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 53 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).

57%
before deadline
(4+ days before target)
25%
on deadline day
(final 3 days)
18%
late
(after the target)
48
average days
valid date to decision

This authority is mixed: a substantial share of decisions land after the statutory target, so treat the target as indicative.

Which day applications are submitted, validated and decided

Submitted (n=871) Validated (n=473) Decided (n=871)
Mon
24.1%
25.8%
21.4%
Tue
18.3%
15.9%
23.5%
Wed
19.9%
18%
18%
Thu
17.9%
17.1%
17.8%
Fri
19.5%
22.6%
19.3%

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
Full 44950%29%21%50
Trees 14990%9%1%42
Conditions 10057%14%29%46
Outline 6161%18%21%49
Amendment 6043%37%20%56

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

Chelmsford Local Plan 2013-2036
Adopted 2020-05-27 · plan period 2013-01-01–2036-01-01
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