Unlike missing financial papers — a defect that can be supplemented — a refusal because the project location does not conform to planning is a foundation-level error: the project may be flawless in every other respect, but if the intended land sits in an area planned for a different function, the investment registration authority has no power to issue the Investment Registration Certificate (IRC). This article explains why planning conformity is a hard condition for IRC issuance, how to self-check a location before filing, and three ways to respond once a refusal has been issued.
Why planning conformity is a precondition for the IRC
Article 39 of Decree No. 96/2026/ND-CP sets the conditions for issuing an IRC to projects not subject to investment policy approval, including two conditions tied directly to location: the project must have an implementation location evidenced by land-use-right documents or a valid location lease agreement, and the project must conform to relevant plannings under the Law on Investment No. 143/2025/QH15. “Planning conformity” means more than land-use planning: depending on the sector, appraisers also cross-check sectoral planning, detailed construction planning, industrial park planning and rules on safety corridors and the environment. A location lawful in land rights can still be refused if the area’s planned function excludes that project type — for example a manufacturing plant on land planned for trade and services, or a warehouse inside an existing residential quarter.
Self-checking planning before filing
A four-layer checking process
- Request planning information from the provincial land and construction authority, or the industrial park management board for locations inside a park, stating the project’s sector and scale clearly.
- Compare the land-use planning and the detailed construction planning of the area: does the land function permit this project type?
- Check sectoral planning layers and attached restrictions: power grid corridors, water sources, safety distances to residential areas, schools and hospitals for sectors with pollution or noise factors.
- Sign a long-term location lease only after favourable written planning information is in hand; include a clause allowing termination if the IRC is refused for planning reasons.
After refusal: three responses and their feasibility
The first response — relocating — is the most feasible in most cases: move the project into an industrial park or cluster whose planned function is already clear, or an area whose approved detailed planning permits exactly that sector. Changing location alters the project’s core content, so the investor files a fresh application rather than “amending” the old one, with new location documents and an explanation of what changed. The second response — trimming the scale or business lines to fit the current location’s planned function — suits cases where only part of the activity conflicts, for example dropping a polluting production stage and keeping assembly and warehousing. The third — proposing a planning adjustment — exists in theory but in practice is a long-term process within the competence of planning-making and approving authorities, not a procedure a single investor can drive within a project’s timeframe; it is worth considering only for very large projects backed by the local government.
Common location and planning mistakes
The most common mistake is leasing land, signing contracts and even building workshops before checking planning, relying on the lessor’s verbal assurances. The second is checking only land-use planning while ignoring sectoral conditions — the site passes on land but fails on environmental safety distance. The third is using the company’s head office address as the project implementation location in the dossier; the two concepts differ, and appraisers examine the actual project site.
Conclusion: a planning refusal can rarely be reversed by supplementing papers, because it is not a dossier defect but a site-selection error. Act in this order: obtain the written statement of the exact non-conformity, re-check locations through the four layers above, and prioritise moving to a site with a clear planned function and filing a fresh application — the fastest way to put the project back on track.
Why industrial parks neutralise most planning risk
Relocating into an industrial park works so reliably because the planning question has already been answered at the park level: the park’s detailed planning fixes the permitted functions, the infrastructure is zoned for production, and the management board itself is usually the investment registration authority for projects inside the park, which removes the friction of consulting multiple provincial departments about the same site. Outside-park locations, by contrast, carry layered uncertainty — the land parcel may sit at the seam between two planning documents, the detailed construction planning may not yet be approved, or a planned road or public facility may cross the site in a later planning period. Investors attached to a specific outside-park site for commercial reasons should therefore price the planning risk honestly: obtain the written planning information before paying deposits, ask specifically about planning adjustments already in the pipeline, and structure the lease with exit rights if a planning change frustrates the project. Where the refusal has already happened, the same logic dictates the recovery sequence: secure the written statement of non-conformity, test candidate replacement sites against the planning layers before signing anything, and treat the relocation cost as the price of certainty. In site selection for regulated production, certainty about planning is almost always worth more than a cheaper rent on a doubtful parcel.
It is also worth remembering that planning information has a shelf life: plannings are adjusted periodically, and a favourable written answer obtained for one filing season may not describe the same parcel two years later. Enterprises holding land for a phased project should refresh the planning confirmation at each phase rather than relying on the answer that cleared the first one.
Frequently Asked Questions
How should a non-compliant project location be handled?
The most feasible route is relocating to a site whose planned function fits — typically an industrial park with approved detailed planning — and filing a fresh application. Another option is narrowing the business lines or scale to match the current site’s planned function.
How can I check a location’s planning conformity before filing?
Request written planning information from the provincial land and construction authority or the industrial park management board, stating the sector and scale; also cross-check land-use planning, detailed construction planning and sectoral restrictions such as environmental safety distances.
Does relocating mean filing the dossier all over again?
Yes. Location is core project content, so a new site requires a fresh IRC application with new location documents, plus an explanation of the changes compared with the refused dossier.