Wheatcroft: amending a planning proposal
Bernard Wheatcroft Limited v Secretary of State for the Environment and Harborough District Council (1982) 43 P&CR 233 is the source of the frequently used Wheatcroft approach to amendments.
The important questions include whether the proposal has changed in substance and whether deciding the amended scheme would unfairly deprive interested people of an opportunity to comment. It is not simply a question of whether the revised plans look smaller or more acceptable.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- (1982) 43 P&CR 233; [1982] JPL 37
- Court
- High Court, Queen's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 24th October 1980
- Judge
- Forbes J
A reduced housing scheme
The original proposal was for 420 homes on about 35 acres. During the appeal process, a reduced scheme of 250 homes on about 25 acres was put forward.
The Secretary of State took a narrow view of the power to consider that alternative, treating whether part of the original development was severable as decisive.
Forbes J held that this was not the correct approach. The decision was quashed so that it could be reconsidered; the court did not grant planning permission for the reduced scheme.
Substance and prejudice are central
A planning proposal does not have to remain unchanged in every detail throughout the determination process. But an amendment cannot be treated as acceptable merely because the applicant and decision-maker are content with it.
The court considered whether the substance of the application would be altered. A principal consideration was whether the development as amended would be so changed that people who ought to have been consulted would be deprived of an opportunity to make representations.
That procedural prejudice is more than an objection to the merits of the development. It concerns whether affected people have had a fair chance to address the proposal actually being decided.
Why a smaller scheme still needs thought
A reduction in the number of homes may reduce some effects while changing others. The proper analysis is not simply to compare headline numbers, but to examine the substance and the opportunity for participation.
Nor should the judgment be converted into a rule that reconsultation automatically makes every amendment permissible. Consultation fairness is important, but it does not create a statutory power which the decision-maker otherwise lacks.
Wheatcroft is not a shortcut around section 73
Questions about amending a pending proposal must be distinguished from varying a permission already granted. The latter requires the relevant statutory procedure and its limits to be respected.
For that separate issue, read Finney and Test Valley v Fiske. Wheatcroft does not itself authorise rewriting the operative description of an existing permission.
Read the Wheatcroft report
Gold Members can read the complete report below. The judgment was delivered in 1980, although the familiar report citations are dated 1982. The correct opening page of the P&CR report is 233.
Wheatcroft Case Law Page Updated: 12th September 2026