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.

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council

GSS E08000027 · Portal: agile (untested) · council register

Applications we hold
2,170
2008-09-19 – 2026-08-24
Refusal rate (our sample)
9%
195 of 2,170 — a sample, not the register
Appeals overturned
35.52%
92 allowed of 295 appeals
Local plan age
—
adoption date not published
This authority is overturned on appeal in 35.52% of decided appeals. A high overturn rate is a material consideration when weighing appeal against resubmission — but check the sample size and read comparable decisions first.

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
926
in the window
Applications decided
803
in the window
Approval rate
83.2%
668 granted, 135 refused · national median refusal 11.6%
Refusal rate rank 30 of 36 metropolitan districts (1 = fewest refusals) · peer median 13.2%
Decided within time
89.8%
rank 182 of 307 reporting authorities · national median 91.4%
Rank 26 of 36 metropolitan districts · peer median 92.1%

Peer ranks compare only metropolitan districts 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
Major1675.0%100.0%
Minor17577.1%75.3%
Other61285.1%—
of which householder49688.9%96.2%
"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
01222432024 Q3: 226 received2024 Q3: 221 decided2024 Q32024 Q4: 185 received2024 Q4: 201 decided2025 Q1: 231 received2025 Q1: 174 decided2025 Q2: 226 received2025 Q2: 205 decided2025 Q3: 242 received2025 Q3: 196 decided2025 Q4: 215 received2025 Q4: 165 decided2026 Q1: 243 received2026 Q1: 214 decided2026 Q2: 226 received2026 Q2: 228 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 (E08000027). 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 605 decisions. Average window from valid date to target: 54 days (the statutory period is 56 days for most applications, 91 for majors).

40%
before deadline
(4+ days before target)
23%
on deadline day
(final 3 days)
36%
late
(after the target)
64
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=605) Validated (n=605) Decided (n=605)
Mon
22.8%
19.7%
20.5%
Tue
24%
22.3%
17.5%
Wed
17.4%
18.8%
21.5%
Thu
17.5%
20.2%
20.8%
Fri
18.2%
18.3%
19.7%

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 32935%30%35%72
Trees 7519%0%81%65
Conditions 7051%10%39%77
Amendment 4967%18%14%37
Outline 4040%48%13%52

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

Black Country Core Strategy
Adoption date not published in the national register · plan period 2011-01-01–2026-01-01
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