3. Mr U complains that PINS decided not to implement traffic calming measures on an unadopted road close to the site of a new housing development. He says this was despite a report from his local council suggesting the measures. Mr U tells us that pedestrians and cyclists using the road may be at higher risk from increased traffic due to the development.
4. Mr U wants PINS to confirm whether it read the council’s report.
5. Usually, an individual will make a planning application to a local council. The council will then approve or refuse the plans. If the plans are refused, the individual can appeal to PINS. They will then decide, or provide a recommendation on, the planning application.
6. A property developer applied for planning permission to Mr U’s local council to build a new housing development. The development would be at the bottom of an unadopted road (a road maintained by the residents, rather than highway maintenance).
7. The application was declined by the local council, so the developer appealed to PINS in 2019.
8. The council produced a report regarding the planning application that stated: ‘it has been suggested that new signage could be erected to inform traffic that this is an un-adopted road with no through-route. However, in addition to this we would recommend that any grant of consent requiring ongoing monitoring of the said route with the potential for introducing measures to deter its use if necessary. The trigger points for introducing these measures will need to be agreed prior to the commencement of development’.
9. PINS approved the planning application but did not take the council’s suggestion forward. Mr U believes it should have.
11. 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 do not consider whether legal action would succeed but whether it would be a reasonable option to look in to.
12. In this case, Mr U is unhappy about PINS’s decision not to take forward the council’s suggestion and implement traffic calming measures.
13. While we can consider complaints of maladministration by PINS, we do not have the power to look at the decisions made by planning inspectors. These decisions are final unless successfully challenged in court. This includes disputes about the way in which a decision was made, the outcome, and the evidence used to make it.
14. There are strict time limits in place for when an individual needs to challenge PINS in the high court. So, while this is not something Mr U could likely pursue now, it is something he could have done in the past. As such, we consider it was reasonable for him to have pursued the matter he is complaining to us about in the courts within the relevant timeframes.
15. We understand that it is not always straightforward to take issues to court but that is simply the only way to raise the above issues about PINS. We acknowledge that Mr U may not have been able to achieve the outcome he has asked us to consider through the courts but ultimately, his unhappiness centres around PINS’s decision to approve the plans without the traffic calming measures. We cannot review that, and for that reason are taking no further action.
1. We have carefully considered Mr U’s complaint about the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). We consider Mr U could have taken legal action on the matter he has brought to us. We understand that this is not the outcome Mr U wanted, and our decision is in no way meant to take away from his feelings on the matter.
2. Mr U is complaining about PINS decision to approve housing development plans without traffic calming measures. The only way he can dispute this is to take the matter to the high court.