Guidance

Guidance on planning propriety: planning casework decisions

Updated 16 December 2021

Applies to England

Foreword

This document updates the 2012 guidance on planning propriety Issues. It principally sets out issues of relevance to planning ministers and outlines how to address propriety issues when taking planning casework decisions. It should also be referred to by those working closely with planning ministers.

The content of this guidance is also relevant to any party that has an interest in a planning decision (including a Member of Parliament or applicant). It outlines the framework that planning ministers and therefore any interested party should operate within, particularly in terms of making representations on planning cases.

The guidance offers practical advice and gives examples of scenarios where propriety issues can arise.

While the core focus is planning casework, the overarching principles can be applied to other elements of planning ministers’ roles, for example with regards to the production of local plans.

This 2021 guidance provides clarity about how to ensure the transparency and propriety of important decisions, and DLUHC’s internal processes will be kept up to date to ensure its effective implementation. The guidance will be supported by a programme of training and dissemination, and will be kept under regular review.

This guidance is not intended to, nor does it, constitute legal advice.

Joanna Averley, Chief Planner

1. Introduction

1. This guidance concerns the importance of propriety, or adhering to the proper standards of behaviour, when planning ministers take decisions on planning casework, in particular decisions whether to grant or refuse planning permission (hereafter referred to as ‘planning casework decisions’). The guidance applies to all ministers in DLUHC charged with making those decisions, who have a personal responsibility to make sure they abide by it. It also applies to officials and others who may be involved in the process in a variety of ways.

2. Because of their position and the high-profile nature of many of the planning decisions they take, it is essential that planning ministers act, and are seen to act, with complete propriety. This is necessary to maintain confidence in the decisions made by planning ministers and in the planning system as a whole. The planning decision-making process must be seen to be fair, open and impartial. If it is not, it is open to challenge by judicial or statutory review.

3. This guidance replaces the previous version published in 2012. It is intended to provide a more practical focus, and has also been updated to address the particular risks that can arise with widespread use of social media. The guidance sets out principles and examples. Decisions, however, are highly context-sensitive and each should be considered in the light of its individual circumstances. Nothing in this guidance supersedes statute or caselaw in respect of the legal requirements relating to planning casework decision-making and other planning decisions.

2. Scope of this guidance

4. Planning casework decisions are made by ‘the Secretary of State’ as a legal entity. However, in practice such decisions are taken by both the holder of that office and by other ministers in the department on his or her behalf. In this guidance the term ‘planning ministers’ refers collectively to the Secretary of State and other ministers in the department exercising planning decision-making responsibilities.

5. This guidance deals specifically with planning casework decisions which come before planning ministers in the form of called-in planning applications (where the Secretary of State makes a decision instead of the local planning authority) or recovered appeals (where the Secretary of State makes a decision instead of a Planning Inspector). Planning ministers also make decisions on other planning matters, such as whether to confirm a compulsory purchase order, exercise powers in relation to the preparation of local plans or make decisions in respect of Special Development Orders or Development Consent Orders. The key principles set out in paragraph 10 below also apply to these situations. However, as they each have their own processes and requirements, not all the subsequent text will be relevant in all circumstances. Separate propriety guidance setting out how these principles apply in other planning contexts may be brought forward in the future and will sit alongside this document.

6. Propriety is equally important to decisions made by officials in the Planning Casework Unit (PCU) within DLUHC (which is led by the Chief Planner), which makes some decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State under delegated powers, and to decisions issued on behalf of the Secretary of State by the Planning Inspectorate (PINS). PINS have bespoke propriety guidance. Particular considerations applying to the PCU and other officials are set out in this guidance from paragraph 44 onwards. This guidance does not apply to local planning authorities, who produce their own propriety guidance, backed up by LGA/PAS guidance.

3. Why is propriety important?

7. The planning system, as set out in current legislation, empowers the Secretary of State with a variety of roles in relation to decision-making on planning casework and other planning matters. The Secretary of State and other planning ministers have many other roles in addition to planning responsibilities, and as part of those wider roles they may engage with external parties including (but not limited to):

• MP and ministerial colleagues
• developers
• local planning authorities and councillors
• professional bodies
• community groups
• representative/trade bodies
• Local Economic Partnerships
• other government departments
• others who have an interest in the work of the department
• others who they engage with as part of their constituency or Party role

8. Some of these parties may also have a role or an interest in particular planning decisions, and it is important that there is a clear distinction between the wider responsibilities of planning ministers and their planning decision-making role. Following this propriety guidance, and being clear to all parties that they will follow it, will protect planning ministers from accusations of impropriety which could:

• undermine the credibility and integrity of the planning system
• create the risk of successful challenge to decisions
• cause reputational damage to the minister, the department and the government
• have consequences under the Ministerial Code

9. The guidance does not compete with or depart from the wider principles of the Ministerial Code and Civil Service Code and the Seven Principles of Public Life. It should be read in the context of the expectations of those documents, and it is the responsibility of those involved in planning decisions to familiarise themselves with those expectations and operate within them.

4. Key propriety principles

10. The key principles which govern propriety in planning decision-making are set out in the box below. The way they apply to planning casework decisions is explained in detail in the following sections.

Key propriety principles

• Decisions must be based only on material planning considerations
• Decision-makers must approach each decision with an open mind
• Decisions must be (and be seen to be) fair and unbiased
• Conflicts of interest must be actively avoided
• Any appearance of impropriety should be avoided
• Maintaining propriety is an active and on-going process

5. Applying these principles to planning casework decisions

Decisions must be based only on material planning considerations

11. Planning casework decisions must be reached only on the basis of evidence and considerations which are relevant to the planning merits of the case. Planning ministers must give clear planning reasons to ensure that their decisions are transparent and can be clearly understood by parties. While not needing to cover every single point of detail, the planning reasons for planning casework decisions must be properly explained in the decision letter which is issued to the main parties.

12. This means planning ministers must not take into account any evidence or considerations which are not relevant to planning, not relevant to the decision, or not before them as part of the evidence in the case. On occasion, it may be appropriate for planning ministers to seek and receive advice on matters of policy and law which are relevant to the decision to enable an informed judgment to be made; however, this is limited to policy and law that is already in the public domain.

Decision-makers must approach each decision with an open mind

13. Decisions must not be fettered by pre-determined views and cases should not be judged before decision-makers have considered the evidence. Decision-makers may hold tentative views on the merits of individual cases but they should be open to persuasion and alternative points of view. They should only reach their final conclusions once they have considered all the evidence and representations.

14. Planning Ministers must therefore approach (and be seen to approach) each decision with an open mind and must not have a predetermined view on a proposal. They are entitled to have and express opinions about general planning issues not related to particular cases before them. They must not, however, prejudge decisions, and it is important that they do not make any public or private comments which could give rise to the impression that they have already made their mind up about the planning merits of a proposal.

15. Planning ministers must not indicate what the decision might be ahead of it formally being issued by the PCU. They must not discuss their thinking with any person outside the department except through a formal ‘minded to’ letter or ‘reference back’ to parties.

16. Planning ministers must exercise great care when using all forms of social media including texts, Facebook, Twitter, and when using their personal communication devices as well as their ministerial equipment. These communications, which may include oral conversations, may be cited if allegations are being made that the minister did not have an open mind. Whether or not the planning minister considers them to be ‘private’, they may also be disclosable under Freedom of Information /Environmental Information Regulations or as part of a court case.

Scenario 1: Avoiding the appearance of pre-determination when applications are called in

Any ministerial decision to call in a planning application for the Secretary of State’s decision is made on the basis of the published call-in policy only. The planning merits of the application will not be determined until after the planning minister has received the Inspector’s Report following a public inquiry or hearing.

Ahead of the final decision to grant or refuse permission, planning ministers must be careful not to make any comments, e.g. on Twitter, which could appear to express a view about the merits of the application. This could lead to allegations of pre-determination.

Decisions must be (and be seen to be) fair and unbiased

17. Making planning casework decisions is a quasi-judicial process, and planning ministers must ensure that they decide cases fairly, are impartial between the parties, and are seen to be fair and impartial in order to avoid any appearance of bias. Apparent bias occurs when a fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the planning minister was biased. What fairness requires can vary from decision to decision, and it is not safe to assume that what is fair in one decision will also be fair in another.

The evidence on which the decision is based must be available to all parties

18. In order to maintain transparency and confidence in the system, parties must be able to access the evidence on which the decision to grant or refuse planning permission is based – whether this is evidence given to a public inquiry, or a representation made in any way on an application or appeal.

19. The evidence which was put forward to a public inquiry is available for anyone who wishes to see it. Post-inquiry representations are listed at the end of the decision letter, and are also publicly available on request. Some of these representations are sent to PINS, and others to the PCU. However, representations may also be made directly to planning ministers, and in those cases it is important that they are passed to the PCU as soon as possible. The PCU will consider whether any post-inquiry representations need to be circulated to parties for comment before the decision is taken (via a ‘reference back’ exercise).

Representations

What is a representation?

A representation is anything which is intended to influence the planning minister’s consideration of a decision. A private representation is one which is not made available to other parties.

What form do representations take?

A representation may be formal or informal, lengthy or brief, and may be made in the course of ministerial duties or in a political or social setting. It may take any form – for example: a personal conversation, an issue raised in a formal meeting, a message passed through someone else, a phone call, a text, an email, a letter, or an electronic message of any kind, including replies or comments on social media posts. However, the informal and ad-hoc nature of some of these communications mean that they may not always be read or even seen by the intended recipient. In order to ensure a representation can be taken into account they should be submitted as set out below.

How should representations be made?

If the inquiry has concluded, representations should be made formally in writing through the PCU. Before or during the inquiry, representations should be made formally in writing through the Planning Inspectorate. Contact details are set out in Annex B.

Dealing with private representations

20. Planning ministers must not invite, encourage or accept private representations (whether oral or written). If planning ministers do receive private representations they must be disclosed as soon as possible to the planning minister’s private office. If possible, the planning minister should make a contemporaneous note of any oral representations and the circumstances in which they were made. The private office will pass such representations to the PCU who will provide advice on how to handle them, including whether to release them to parties. If possible, the party making the private representation should be advised immediately that the planning minister cannot read or listen to the representation, and that any future representations should be routed directly through the PCU. It should also be made clear that they can only be taken into account if they can also be made available to all interested parties for comment.

Meetings

21. Planning ministers should decline requests for meetings or discussions (via any medium) about cases which are before them, or may come before them. If a case is likely to arise at a meeting covering other matters, participants should be advised ahead of time and preferably in writing that the planning minister will not be able to discuss or receive representations on the case, and this should be reiterated at the meeting. Where meetings do take place, whether officials are present or not, if live cases are touched on, parties must be advised immediately that the planning minister cannot listen to or read representations. A written record of what is said should be taken and passed to the PCU as soon as possible.

22. However, planning ministers meet many people in the course of their duties, and it is not always possible to anticipate or avoid meetings where those present may wish to discuss live planning cases. Particular risks arise when planning ministers are approached unexpectedly in Parliament, or at social or political events, at a time when no officials are present. The Ministerial Code states that, should a minister find themselves discussing official business without an official present, any significant contact should be passed back to the department as soon as possible after the event. Where a case has been raised with a planning minister, it may be necessary to contact all other parties to give them an opportunity to make representations on the points raised. It may also be necessary to ensure that the planning minister concerned takes no further part in that decision. Advice on what to do in this scenario is set out below.

Scenario 2: unexpected and unavoidable meetings where no official is present

Planning ministers should:

• as soon as they realise a representation is being made on any live or forthcoming cases which could come before them for decision, politely decline to listen to it, explaining how formal representations should be made
• advise the party to contact the PCU if they wish to make representations on the case
• advise officials in the department immediately of the encounter

23. It is not necessarily easy for planning ministers to know if a particular case may at some later point come before them for decision, so caution should be exercised if asked to comment generally on proposals. Planning ministers should not comment at any point on the details or potential planning merits of proposals. The following paragraphs summarise the considerations at different stages of the planning process.

Formative stage (application not yet made)

24. Planning ministers may attend meetings involving interested parties and may comment in general terms on a potential development. However, planning ministers should avoid expressing views which could be perceived as prejudicial to the determination of any potential planning application.

Planning application made and with local planning authority

25. Greater care needs to be taken at this stage. Planning ministers should decline requests for meetings or discussions (via any medium) about applications which may come before them for decision. If approached, planning ministers should politely decline to listen to representations. They should advise the party in question how they may make a representation, i.e. to approach the PCU, and advise their private office of the discussion immediately.

Planning application or appeal to be determined by ministers

26. Planning ministers are much more exposed to the risk of legal challenge if they agree to meet interested parties at this point. They should therefore decline requests for visits involving meetings with interested parties at this stage. Where a meeting is unavoidable (e.g. because the meeting was unplanned), planning ministers should not accept any representations, and should explain the propriety issues to those present.

27. Whatever the stage of the application, planning ministers should make it clear that in the event of their having to make a decision on any subsequent planning application should it come before the Secretary of State, they will consider all the evidence at that time with an open mind before reaching a decision.

Site visits

28. Planning ministers should decline invitations to site visits where the focus of the visit concerns a planning application that has been made which may come before them for decision. Site visits of this nature are undertaken by Planning Inspectors in respect of recovered appeals and called-in applications, and these are governed by robust processes and procedures set out in Inspector guidance. Planning ministers should not make any unaccompanied visits. There may of course be occasions where planning ministers do see sites in the course of their other responsibilities, for example where the visit is not specifically about that site but relates to a larger regeneration programme, or when travelling in or through areas which see high numbers of cases (e.g. the City of London). Advice on what to do in that situation is set out in Scenario 3.

Scenario 3: a ministerial visit to a locality where there is a live planning application

Planning ministers should:

• not express views about the planning merits of a particular proposal
• make clear that should the proposal come before them for decision at a later date they would approach it with an open mind on the basis of the facts which are before them at that time
• make clear that they may not be the decision-making planning minister
• alert private office, who will notify the PCU

Conflicts of interest must be actively avoided

29. There are a number of ways in which conflicts of interest could arise between the decision-making role of planning ministers and their other interests. For example, there could be a conflict of interest in terms of:

• their role as a constituency MP
• other ministerial responsibilities (for example in connection with grants and funding decisions)
• locations where they have a home or own land/property
• financial or business interests (for example shareholding in a development company)
• personal relationships
• previous involvement in a case, either as an MP or in a private capacity
• interests with which they are known to be associated, for example via membership of organisations which could have an obvious interest in the decision

30. The best way to ensure that conflicts of interest are avoided is through transparency about planning ministers’ interests, with decisions being made by another planning minister where there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest. Planning ministers are required to declare their interests as part of their responsibilities under the Ministerial Code. Additionally, before any planning minister takes decisions, they are required to declare anything which could give rise to a conflict of interest (or the appearance of a conflict of interest) in casework. The PCU uses this information to ensure that planning ministers do not deal with decisions which could give rise to an appearance of impropriety – for example, the PCU will ensure that planning ministers do not have responsibility for planning casework in their constituency, or any area where they have a home.

31. The PCU will also check during the course of individual cases whether there are any propriety issues relating to that case specifically. It is the responsibility of planning ministers and private office to alert the PCU if they become aware at any point during the handling of a case that there are potential conflicts of interest.

Constituency and ministerial roles

32. In their role as MPs with constituency interests, planning ministers may wish to express opinions on planning matters affecting their constituents. They are not precluded from doing so, as long as representations are made openly and on the basis that they can be made available to all interested parties for comment. They must also make clear that they are acting as their constituents’ representative and expressly not as a planning minister. Planning ministers should take particular care not to give any impression of wielding ministerial influence in respect of particular planning decisions. It is important to avoid any appearance of bias arising from two planning ministers reciprocally deciding cases in each other’s constituencies. The PCU will manage the allocation of cases so that as far as possible this situation is avoided. If it does arise, propriety will be very strictly observed.

33. Some planning ministers in DLUHC also have a responsibility for DLUHC policy in a particular area of the country. They should be particularly careful not to blur their policy and planning roles. In visiting proposed projects or in discussing the application of national policy to those projects, they should make the parties aware that their policy role may impact upon their ability to have a role in the planning decision-making process, and that the latter may have to be handled by another planning minister.

The Secretary of State as an applicant

34. On rare occasions, the Secretary of State may be an applicant for planning permission. In such instances, specific arrangements are put in hand by the department to ensure a clear separation of responsibilities so that the planning minister taking the decision will have no previous connection with the application and will have no contact regarding the case with ministers acting in an applicant capacity. This is to ensure there is a clear process for handling such planning applications which avoids any unfairness or potential conflicts of interest, or any perception of conflict or bias. It also enables the planning minister to approach decisions with an open mind. Similar arrangements are put in place at official level. These administrative arrangements ensure an appropriate separation between the conflicting functions of decision-maker and the applicant.

Ministers without planning responsibilities

35. In exercise of their policy functions DLUHC ministers without planning responsibilities may have legitimate reasons for showing an interest in development projects, for example if they relate to matters such as regeneration or homelessness. They should take care not to comment on any aspect of the proposal which relates to the planning decision. They should also make clear that they will have no role in the planning decision-making process and that they are unable to discuss the planning aspects of the proposal with planning ministers within the department.

Any appearance of impropriety should be avoided

36. Even where there has been no actual impropriety, if parties suspect that there could have been bias, predetermination or procedural unfairness, there can be damaging consequences, including loss of confidence in the integrity of the planning system, damage to the reputation of the minister or the department and legal challenges.

37. Planning ministers and officials should therefore be mindful of how things could be perceived by those outside the department (who may not be in possession of the full facts). This could include assumptions around the nature of any relationship between the planning minister and parties, even if the decision in question has not been raised. Planning ministers may wish to consider recusing themselves from relevant decisions in order to avoid the possibility of allegations of bias. A process which is as transparent as possible will help to guard against any appearance of bias.

Scenario 4: ‘Informal’ social media exchanges

No informal exchanges must take place between the planning minister and any external parties about any case which is under consideration or may come before planning ministers to decide. In addition to traditional forms of communication, this requirement also includes social media such as Facebook and Twitter, email, texting or messaging on a minister’s personal electronic device. Ministers should not actively engage with messages or comments and replies on social media that relate to planning decisions (e.g. “liking” tweets, re-tweeting or commenting on posts).

Maintaining propriety is an active and on-going process

38. Maintaining propriety is not just a one-time event. Things can change during the course of a case; new facts can come to light and new representations can be made. Planning ministers, private office and other officials must be vigilant throughout the lifetime of a case and inform the PCU if anything arises which could give rise to propriety concerns.

39. Planning ministers receive casework propriety training on appointment, and it is highlighted during case discussions. Consideration of propriety is also embedded in the working practices of the PCU. This includes good record-keeping and ensuring that there is a full audit trail for decisions.

40. It is important that by their actions, planning ministers and officials underline the importance of propriety with external parties. It must be clear to all parties at all times that these principles will be upheld. This will help to manage their expectations about what they might achieve by approaching planning ministers and how they should make representations on a planning case.

41. If planning ministers have any concerns about propriety, or the possible appearance of impropriety, they should seek advice. Officials in the PCU can advise whether there is a propriety concern, how to communicate with parties, and what action may be needed to overcome any concerns, for example:

• advising whether ministers should recuse themselves from a decision and transfer it to another planning minister
• sharing representations with other interested parties; or
• ensuring that a note is taken of meetings, which may subsequently be circulated

42. In order to provide effective advice, it is important that the PCU is made aware at the earliest opportunity of anything that could potentially touch on propriety.

43. Where they consider it necessary, PCU and the Chief Planner may seek further advice from legal colleagues, and are able to escalate concerns to the Permanent Secretary of DLUHC. Where necessary, the Permanent Secretary may seek advice from the Cabinet Office.

6. The role of officials and others

Planning casework officials

44. The activities of officials in the PCU that handle planning casework and provide advice to planning ministers are governed by the Civil Service Code and the relevant staff handbook. The majority of the considerations which apply to planning ministers also apply to officials in the PCU and across the Planning Directorate more broadly. Officials also receive propriety training, and a consideration of propriety is embedded in their working practices.

45. Like planning ministers, officials who handle planning decisions must abide by the key principles set out above. Their advice must be objective, impartial and based on material planning considerations. They are also required to declare any conflicts of interest, and will not handle any decisions where their private interests could give rise to any perception of impropriety. As set out in Scenario 4 relating to ministers above, officials are also required to be particularly vigilant about their use of social media, and ensure that any posts or informal exchanges do not breach confidentiality or call into question their impartiality as civil servants.

Private office

46. Officials in private office are a conduit between planning ministers and planning casework officials. As explained in paragraph 19 above, it is important that they pass on any information which could have a bearing on propriety as quickly as possible, and maintain a high level of awareness of propriety at all times.

Special advisers

47. Planning decisions must be made solely on the basis of valid planning matters, and not by reference to political or presentational considerations. This applies regardless of the source of the advice and that of special advisers is treated in the same way as advice from an official giving internal advice to ministers. This applies to political advisers and to any specialist advice (for example on design matters) provided to planning ministers.

48. Once a decision has been made by a planning minister (including the finalising of the decision letter), special advisers and wider departmental officials may then provide advice on the presentation of the made decision, including media handling of controversial cases.

49. In the same way as planning ministers, special advisers may on occasion be approached by parties to a planning decision. They have a key role to play in setting expectations that propriety will be strictly observed, and like planning ministers they may explain to a party how formal representations can be made and must pass on details about these contacts to the PCU as soon as possible. The guidance directed towards ministers in Scenario 4 above relating to informal exchanges applies equally to special advisers.

50. Where a special adviser has a private interest in a planning matter he or she must advise the Permanent Secretary of any such interest, and thereafter is free to make representations in the usual way.

Parliamentary private secretaries (PPSs)

51. Parliamentary private secretaries to ministers in DLUHC (whether planning or non-planning) are not to be involved in making planning decisions, or in the consideration of planning cases. The Ministerial Code makes clear that “Parliamentary private secretaries are not members of the government. However, they must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their role as a Parliamentary private secretary, and their private interests.” The Code goes on to state that “Parliamentary private secretaries, particularly those in departments with planning responsibilities, should take special care when making representations to planning ministers about planning issues. In particular, they should not discuss planning decisions with interested parties or imply that they have any influence over planning decisions.”

52. In representing their constituency interests, PPSs should abide by the advice in paragraph 32 above and relevant sections of the Ministerial Code. The Ministerial Code also requires that the Permanent Secretary be advised of any such interests.

Other government departments

53. In some cases, major projects may require a joint decision with a minister in another government department. In that case the propriety considerations set out in this guidance will apply to the decision overall, and to both ministers, either by direct application of this guidance, or via parallel guidance produced by the other department. In these cases, it is appropriate for the ministers concerned with joint determinations and for officials dealing with those decisions to be able to discuss their handling with each other. In such cases a proper record of such discussions and outcomes must be made.

54. In other cases, particular care needs to be taken by planning ministers when dealing with planning applications made by other government departments (or supported or opposed by them), given the potential for perception of assisting government colleagues. Unless the decision is a joint one, planning casework decisions are for planning ministers alone. It will be important to ensure that there is no appearance of impropriety in such decisions.

MPs

55. MPs, like other parties, may express views about planning casework proposals. Where their comments are material to the planning merits of the decision, they will be taken into account in the same way as other evidence. The same principles of transparency apply to MPs as other parties and MPs should not seek to lobby planning ministers privately. As stated in paragraph 20, representations can only be taken into account if they can also be made available to all interested parties for comment.

56. If approached by an MP, a planning minister should explain that it would not be appropriate for them to comment on or discuss a planning case that is with the department, PINS or ministers, and advise the MP how they should make their representation through the formal channels, as set out in Scenario 2 of this guidance. This applies to approaches in formal settings e.g. meetings, as well as informal.

7. After the decision

57. After the planning decision has been issued, it enters its legal challenge period, where an aggrieved party can bring a legal challenge against the decision. If the challenge is successful, this would require the decision to be retaken, and potentially a new Inquiry to be held. Full reasons for the decision are set out in the decision letter, and planning ministers and officials are not able to comment on the decision, summarise or interpret it. Requests for comments should be dealt with by referring the enquirer back to a decision letter and / or formal correspondence.

Annex A: How planning casework decisions come before planning ministers

Planning applications which are called in before the Local Planning Authority’s (LPA) decision

There are broad powers under section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to ‘call in’ a planning application for decision by the Secretary of State at any point before the LPA has made a decision on it. Planning ministers may consider whether to call in an application either following a ‘request to intervene’ (which anyone can make), or following referral of the proposal by the LPA under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. See further information about call-in policy.

Planning applications which are recovered after the LPA decision, or in the case of non-determination

If the LPA refuses a planning application or doesn’t determine it within set timescales, or grants planning permission subject to conditions, the applicant can appeal to the Secretary of State. Planning appeals are transferred to PINS to be determined by an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. There are broad powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for an appeal to be ‘recovered’ for decision by the Secretary of State. See further information about recovery policy.

The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) role

All recovered appeals and called-in applications are in the first instance dealt with by PINS, who appoint an independent Planning Inspector to consider the planning merits of the proposal, based on representations from the main parties and other interested parties. The Planning Inspector produces a report and recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether planning permission should be granted or refused.

The Planning Casework Unit (PCU) role

The Inspector’s Report (IR) is sent to the PCU, and at the same time parties are notified of the 13-week target date for the Secretary of State’s decision. The PCU process the case and put a submission to ministers. When planning ministers have made their decision, officials in the PCU draft a decision letter to reflect that decision and issue the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State.

Annex B: Contact details

• PINS – [email protected]
• PCU (called-in applications and recovered appeals only) – [email protected]
• PCU (all other matters) – PCU@communities.gov.uk