Planning Inspectorate

4. Mr A complains the Planning Inspectorate has not fairly considered his appeal and made an unreasonable decision to reject it.

5. Mr A has chronic pain and complains that the effect his pain and disabilities have on his mobility, means he needs easy access to his car. He complains the Planning Inspectorate’s decision does not fairly consider his building plans, how those plans would fit in with other properties in the area or his needs as a disabled person. He also complains the Planning Inspector who visited to inspect the site did not consult him about his plans and this meant they did not understand the details and reasoning behind the plans.

6. Mr A complains the Planning Inspectorate missed the opportunity to resolve a long running planning application, causing him much stress and inconvenience. He would like it to reconsider its decision and agree his plans are reasonable.

7. Mr A’s complaint comes from the difficulty he has had getting his local authority to agree to a plan to rebuild the garage in his home. Concerns about the actions of local authorities are not in our remit to investigate. Complaints about a local authority can be taken to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) instead.

8. Mr A appealed the local authority’s decision to refuse him planning permission. Appeals are decided by the Planning Inspectorate. In October 2022 the Planning Inspectorate told Mr A it was rejecting his appeal. It did so after a site visit to inspect the garage Mr A wanted to rebuild and the surrounding area.

9. Mr A complained about that decision because he felt the evidence he had presented and the circumstances of his planning application had not been fairly considered and that parts of the decision were unreasonable. In April 2023 the Planning Inspectorate sent its first complaint response explaining how site visits should be done and giving background to some statements it had made in the appeal decision. It said it was limited in how far it could go to address issues through the complaints process and it could not remake the decision.

10. Mr A wrote to repeat his concerns about how evidence had been weighed up and said he considered the appeal decision showed disability discrimination. In April 2023 the Planning Inspectorate responded to explain that the inspector needed to weigh up a range of evidence and that it could not look at the substance of the decision in more detail.

13. The Planning Inspectorate makes decisions about whether local authorities have applied planning law correctly. Its appeal decisions can be challenged by applying to the court for a judicial review. Consideration of whether the law has been applied correctly may only be carried out by the courts. We are not a judicial service and have no authority to make decisions in law, only a court or tribunal can.

14. We can consider complaints about maladministration (fault) and poor service. But, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 says we cannot consider a complaint where a person had the option to take legal action to achieve the outcome they want, unless we consider this was unreasonable in the circumstances. We have thought about Mr A’s circumstances in reaching our decision.

15. From what Mr A told us, we understand he decided taking his appeal further was too costly and he could not be certain it would lead to a favourable decision. We appreciate there are costs and complexity involved with a judicial review, but it is a necessary next step for people who want to overturn a Planning Inspectorate decision.

16. The Planning Inspectorate did look at Mr A’s concerns when he complained, but explained to him the complaint process could not revisit or reconsider matters the Planning Inspector made. This is in line with its Complaints Procedure and was appropriate advice to give.

17. The Planning Inspectorate’s complaint response said inspectors try to make decisions that balance the views of all parties. It said, ‘the onus on the parties concerned to provide, at the appropriate time during the processing of an appeal, any evidence which they consider is necessary’ and inspectors cannot investigate further or get additional information. We understand this is why Mr A was told he would not be able to discuss his appeal during the site visit and why he was not able to explain his plans to the inspector.

18. We can see this is in line with section 9.5 of the Appeals Guidance that says, ‘As all parties must make their case in writing only, no discussion is allowed about the case during a site visit’. We expect organisations to act in line with established guidance and we think it was likely doing this when it limited the discussion it had with Mr A during the inspection.

19. The Planning Inspectorate also considered Mr A’s objections that the appeal did not fairly consider his needs as a disabled person, although it said it was limited in what it could do, like we are. Its complaint responses explain what the inspector was required to consider when deciding the appeal and that these factors had been given in the decision. But, it did not go on to give a view on whether a different decision should have been made and said Mr A needed to go to a court to achieve this. Again, this is in keeping with its role as set out in its Complaints Procedure.

20. The Planning Inspectorate explained why it considered it had followed its guidance, which is all we could expect it to do in line with its Complaints Procedure. Any claim that the Planning Inspectorate was not applying planning law fairly, including that it was not considering Mr A’s human rights or equality law, would need to be considered by the court. We cannot give any view about whether there has been a breach of human rights for the same reason.

21. Having examined Mr A’s concerns and all the evidence available to us, we have seen it is for the courts to take forward. The Planning Inspectorate was limited in how far it could consider the points he made in his complaints and we have not seen it made mistakes in explaining its position. The Planning Inspectorate has provided evidence-based explanations, with reference to the relevant guidance in line with our Principles of Good Administration. Where it could not comment on the substance of Mr A’s concerns, it explained why.

22. From our discussions with Mr A we know how important planning approval is for him and he has explained the improvements he believes approval could make to his ability to get around and his daily quality of life. We hope we have clearly explained our decision and why we are not able to help him in the way he hoped.

1. Mr A has been trying to get planning approval to renovate a garage since 2020. He has not been given permission to complete the works he says he needs so that he has a space to safely park his car and avoid a difficult and painful walk to his home. In 2022 he appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, but it did not overturn the local authority’s decision to decline his application.

2. We understand he has been frustrated and stressed by this process and he tells us he continues to need planning approval so work to improve his health and quality of life can start. Having carefully considered the service provided by the Planning Inspectorate, we cannot give any view on its decisions on his planning application. This is because it makes decisions in line with planning law and a court would need to decide whether it has done so fairly and correctly. We cannot look at matters where someone has a legal route available and it is reasonable for them to explore this to achieve the outcome they want.

3. We have considered how the Planning Inspectorate responded to Mr A’s complaint, bearing in mind the limits of our role as set out above. We can see it handled his complaint in line with its guidance, providing explanations where it is able to and explaining why it is not able to comment on other matters. We explain our decision in more detail below.