Planning Inspectorate

3. Mrs D, as a representative of the AG, complains that a Planning Inspector failed to take adequate account of the ecological and environmental impact of a proposal set before them, when making their decision, and during the public enquiry relating to the proposal. This includes not showing that they had taken account of historic records of ancient woodland, which would have affected the boundaries of the construction being planned as well as discounting Natural England guidelines.

4. She also complains the response to her complaint to the Planning Inspectorate did not make reference to this historic data and appears to have been based on the assumption the Planning Inspector made. She says it also discounted Natural England guidelines.

5. Mrs D tells us that she and the other members of the AG are outraged at the fact the go-ahead was given for the proposal without due diligence on the part of the Planning Inspectorate. She also tells us that the impact on the local ecology will reduce the enjoyment she and the AG members get from the area, due to the impact of the construction. They all find the thought of this extremely distressing.

6. Mrs D tells us that she would like the Planning Inspector’s decision to be overturned, and a more detailed environmental assessment carried out. She would also like the construction work to be stopped while that work is being undertaken.

7. In February 2021, Mrs D and other members of the AG attended a public enquiry into a proposed construction near an area of ancient woodland, local to the members of the group. She attended as a member of this local group of users of the land, who were concerned about the impact of the construction and associated activities on the nearby woodland and other ecology.

8. When the appeal that brought about the enquiry was declined, and the Planning Inspector gave the go-ahead, Mrs D complained to the Planning Inspectorate about the decision and how it was reached.

9. Once she completed that process and did not achieve the outcome she sought, the AG immediately explored with a solicitor the option of taking legal action but were advised that it could be costly and with a low chance of success. She then brought her complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in May 2021.

12. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint where a person has (or had) the option to take legal action, unless we consider this is (or was) unreasonable in the circumstances. We have discussed this with Mrs D to understand her and the AG’s circumstances and the outcomes they want. We do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.

13. The courts allow six weeks from a final planning decision, after appeal, for a Judicial Review request to be lodged.

14. The AG are claiming that by failing to take account of available information about the environmental impact, the planning inspector made errors in procedure that were then not addressed in the complaint process.

15. The legal route is the only route to achieve the outcomes Mrs D and the AG are looking for, which is a change to the legal decision on the basis that it was flawed. In our role, we have no authority to overturn a judicial decision or instruct a halt to the work currently ongoing. This tells us that it would have been reasonable for Mrs D to have pursued a legal route, even if she had been advised the chances of success were likely to be low, as no other route could provide what she seeks.

16. We can see the group did explore legal action, within the window of opportunity allowed by the courts, to challenge a planning inspector’s decision but decided the cost and low chance of success was a good reason not to continue. While the AG would now be out of time to go back to the court and try to pursue a legal remedy, we can see that there was an opportunity to have done this within the time limit. As such, we can see the AG did have a legal route available to them and it was reasonable that they pursued it at the time, because of the outcomes they were seeking.

17. For the reasons set out above, we cannot consider these matters further and will take no further action on this complaint.

1. We have carefully considered the complaint made by an Action Group in the Sheffield area (the AG), about the Planning Inspectorate. We will not take further action on the concerns they have raised. This is because the evidence available to us shows the AG could have taken take legal action on the matter it has brought to us. We consider that it would have been reasonable for them to pursue a legal route for the outcomes they are looking for.

2. The legislation, which gives us our powers, tells us we may not consider complaints in these circumstances. We can see that the AG has expressed its views both during and after the planning process, and it is evident that they feel very strongly about the concerns they raise. As such, we understand our decision will be disappointing for all involved. We explain the reasons for our decision further below.