Ever been dismayed to see your planning application allocated to a development management officer with reputation for refusing development? The sad fact of life is that not all officers are the same. The question is, does the same apply to planning inspectors?
Naturally PINS protests that all appeals are treated with the utmost professionalism and impartiality. Of course every Inspector tries hard to be fair. Nevertheless, Inspectors are human too and naturally each has their own personality, perspective and unique experience of life. Furthermore, the planning system is not a simple matter of applying tick-box assessments and clear rules; subjective judgements are required. Ultimately decision-making is down to the individual. Who the decision maker is does matter.
To be open and transparent, the Planning Inspectorate publish annual statistics for each individual Planning Inspector. These are reproduced in the table at the foot of this page so you can see the track record of your appointed Inspector. Please note that a track record is only a reliable indicator where there are a significant number of appeals. The smaller the number of appeals, the less useful is the data. For example, if the number of appeals is less than 10 in any one category, the results will reflect the natural of the individual appeals more than the individual inspector.
Please note PINS’ caveats on use of the data detailed at the bottom of the table. They emphasise that all Inspectors must abide by rules of impartiality and that casework is allocated on the best balance of availability, geography, casework level and expertise. This may produce apparent patterns of outcome that are in fact artefacts of the way work is allocated and do not provide evidence as to an Inspector’s fitness for or approach to a particular case. Please bear these important caveats in mind when interpreting the % of appeals approved by your nominated Inspector.
It’s worth looking at previous appeal Decisions made by your nominated Inspector on developments similar to your own case, as it may highlight your Inspector’s thinking processes. For example, one Inspector may have a particular focus on design issues while another may emphasise landscape impact. A quick read of 5 – 10 previous decisions by your Inspector will help you understand their perspective better. It is particularly valuable to look at those appeals they have dismissed, so you can be better prepared to respond to the LPA’s Statement of Case in a manner that it also likely to address your Inspector’s likely concerns.
To find appeals by your nominated Inspector, search by Inspector using Appeal Finder’s search.
Source: PINS annual statistics, table 5.2; Please see the important notes at the end of table when interpreting the data.
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
JD Allan | 0 | - | 63 | 48% | 0 | - |
M Allen | 71 | 28% | 18 | 28% | 0 | - |
R Allen | 5 | 20% | 7 | 71% | 0 | - |
M Andrews | 20 | 30% | 64 | 52% | 0 | - |
M Aqbal | 54 | 46% | 12 | 25% | 0 | - |
S Ashworth | 13 | 23% | 4 | 25% | 0 | - |
R Aston | 8 | 38% | 2 | 0% | 0 | - |
J Ayres | 32 | 38% | 10 | 90% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
SRG Baird | 11 | 45% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
M Bale | 72 | 33% | 9 | 56% | 0 | - |
D Barnes | 10 | 30% | 50 | 40% | 0 | - |
R Barrett | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
R Bartlett | 17 | 24% | 31 | 52% | 0 | - |
H Baugh-Jones | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C Baxter | 57 | 39% | 17 | 41% | 0 | - |
G Bayliss | 7 | 14% | 6 | 0% | 0 | - |
C Beeby | 24 | 17% | 2 | 100% | 0 | - |
JR Bell-Williamson | 32 | 25% | 35 | 17% | 0 | - |
K Bennett | 6 | 83% | 8 | 38% | 0 | - |
E Benson | 11 | 55% | 15 | 53% | 0 | - |
P Biggers | 15 | 47% | 45 | 29% | 0 | - |
J Blackwell | 55 | 29% | 42 | 31% | 0 | - |
D Board | 6 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
D Boffin | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 15 | 27% |
V Bond | 3 | 0% | 0 | - | 21 | 5% |
M Boniface | 8 | 63% | 2 | 100% | 0 | - |
A Boughton | 1 | 0% | 16 | 31% | 0 | - |
J Bowyer | 113 | 36% | 9 | 22% | 0 | - |
JE Braithwaite | 16 | 56% | 0 | - | 21 | 19% |
A Bremford | 5 | 0% | 3 | 33% | 0 | - |
J Bridgwater | 0 | - | 4 | 0% | 0 | - |
S Britnell | 35 | 23% | 12 | 8% | 0 | - |
M Brooker | 36 | 31% | 36 | 17% | 0 | - |
S Brown | 3 | 0% | 0 | - | 18 | 39% |
E Brownless | 51 | 20% | 9 | 22% | 0 | - |
R Buchanan | 48 | 13% | 28 | 29% | 0 | - |
T Burnham | 60 | 35% | 24 | 58% | 0 | - |
H Butcher | 14 | 7% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
M Caine | 52 | 21% | 14 | 29% | 0 | - |
A Caines | 53 | 42% | 32 | 47% | 0 | - |
V Callister | 33 | 24% | 37 | 51% | 0 | - |
D Carter | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Castle | 23 | 22% | 8 | 0% | 0 | - |
R Catchpole | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
M Chalk | 109 | 23% | 11 | 45% | 0 | - |
G Chamberlain | 46 | 39% | 4 | 0% | 0 | - |
M Chandler | 77 | 30% | 28 | 50% | 0 | - |
JL Cheesley | 0 | - | 29 | 10% | 0 | - |
I Chukwujekwu | 16 | 25% | 27 | 15% | 0 | - |
J Clark | 13 | 31% | 46 | 24% | 0 | - |
P Clark | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
B Clarke | 72 | 18% | 27 | 15% | 0 | - |
R Clegg | 4 | 75% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
D Cliff | 20 | 45% | 2 | 50% | 0 | - |
M Clowes | 1 | 0% | 12 | 25% | 0 | - |
L Coffey | 8 | 25% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Colebourne | 6 | 17% | 36 | 28% | 0 | - |
L Conde | 10 | 30% | 11 | 36% | 0 | - |
B Cook | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 10 | 60% |
A Coombes | 0 | - | 34 | 21% | 0 | - |
P Cooper | 74 | 24% | 28 | 21% | 0 | - |
W Cooper | 57 | 32% | 20 | 60% | 0 | - |
C Couper | 22 | 32% | 42 | 45% | 0 | - |
T Courtney | 12 | 25% | 40 | 33% | 0 | - |
C Coyne | 58 | 24% | 16 | 50% | 0 | - |
D Cragg | 62 | 27% | 30 | 33% | 0 | - |
JD Cramond | 26 | 38% | 34 | 29% | 0 | - |
C Cresswell | 24 | 54% | 11 | 64% | 0 | - |
R Cridland | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
L Crosby | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
D Cross | 65 | 20% | 24 | 13% | 0 | - |
M Cryan | 71 | 27% | 21 | 10% | 0 | - |
F Cullen | 25 | 28% | 6 | 50% | 0 | - |
R Curnow | 4 | 0% | 0 | - | 39 | 15% |
L Cuthbert | 8 | 25% | 8 | 50% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
M Dakeyne | 3 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
AJ Dale | 0 | - | 37 | 54% | 0 | - |
B Davies | 30 | 13% | 7 | 57% | 0 | - |
E Davies | 2 | 0% | 15 | 40% | 0 | - |
G Davies | 62 | 45% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
H Davies | 21 | 33% | 9 | 22% | 0 | - |
ND Davies | 60 | 37% | 13 | 46% | 0 | - |
N Davies | 51 | 18% | 15 | 20% | 0 | - |
J Davis | 17 | 35% | 39 | 51% | 0 | - |
A Dawe | 5 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Dean | 56 | 48% | 16 | 44% | 0 | - |
G Deane | 13 | 31% | 58 | 26% | 0 | - |
P Dignan | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 14 | 36% |
C Dillon | 29 | 34% | 6 | 50% | 0 | - |
L Douglas | 83 | 30% | 21 | 52% | 0 | - |
B Doward | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
KE Down | 11 | 9% | 15 | 60% | 0 | - |
C Downes | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
J Dowsett | 28 | 43% | 3 | 67% | 0 | - |
GC Dudley | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 32 | 81% |
I Dyer | 20 | 10% | 6 | 17% | 0 | - |
S Dyer | 9 | 11% | 0 | - | 35 | 14% |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
A Edgington | 26 | 31% | 9 | 33% | 0 | - |
J Edwards | 90 | 28% | 12 | 33% | 0 | - |
S Edwards | 62 | 8% | 5 | 60% | 0 | - |
P Eggleton | 10 | 10% | 16 | 25% | 0 | - |
D Ellis | 14 | 21% | 71 | 25% | 0 | - |
G Ellis | 15 | 13% | 29 | 21% | 0 | - |
H Ellison | 50 | 20% | 20 | 0% | 0 | - |
J Evans | 2 | 50% | 14 | 7% | 0 | - |
LJ Evans | 22 | 14% | 31 | 68% | 0 | - |
MW Evans | 0 | - | 15 | 13% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
R Fallon | 14 | 0% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
J Felgate | 35 | 54% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
A Fish | 29 | 24% | 13 | 54% | 0 | - |
D Fitzsimon | 5 | 40% | 51 | 24% | 0 | - |
D Fleming | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 11 | 55% |
L Fleming | 17 | 18% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C Ford | 46 | 15% | 15 | 0% | 0 | - |
K Ford | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
G Fort | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
Z Franks | 4 | 0% | 0 | - | 23 | 35% |
P Freer | 4 | 0% | 0 | - | 49 | 14% |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
T Gethin | 26 | 54% | 26 | 54% | 0 | - |
L Gibbons | 4 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
J Gilbert | 17 | 18% | 2 | 0% | 0 | - |
T Gilbert-Wooldridge | 14 | 36% | 5 | 20% | 0 | - |
C Glaister | 0 | - | 34 | 38% | 0 | - |
S Glassar | 78 | 17% | 27 | 33% | 0 | - |
G Gould | 7 | 29% | 5 | 60% | 0 | - |
A Graham | 13 | 15% | 30 | 37% | 0 | - |
J Graham | 0 | - | 1 | 0% | 5 | 20% |
E Gray | 7 | 14% | 0 | - | 29 | 17% |
JL Greenwood | 6 | 67% | 31 | 58% | 0 | - |
E Grierson | 30 | 33% | 57 | 33% | 0 | - |
E Griffin | 5 | 0% | 0 | - | 44 | 16% |
P Griffiths | 11 | 27% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Griffiths | 3 | 67% | 6 | 67% | 0 | - |
J Gunn | 27 | 22% | 24 | 29% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
C Hall | 25 | 44% | 43 | 56% | 0 | - |
R Hall | 45 | 33% | 14 | 21% | 0 | - |
S Hand | 7 | 43% | 0 | - | 72 | 14% |
P Hanna | 9 | 33% | 2 | 100% | 0 | - |
S Hanson | 5 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 45 | 13% |
M Harbottle | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 18 | 11% |
S Harley | 31 | 26% | 15 | 33% | 0 | - |
I Harrison | 0 | - | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
N Harrison | 14 | 57% | 6 | 50% | 0 | - |
D Hartley | 43 | 23% | 5 | 0% | 13 | 8% |
S Hartley | 13 | 46% | 26 | 54% | 0 | - |
A Harwood | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 13 | 23% |
T Hatfield | 26 | 31% | 10 | 50% | 0 | - |
S Hawkins | 4 | 0% | 0 | - | 59 | 12% |
M Hayden | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
J Hebblethwaite | 2 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
D Hendley | 40 | 25% | 25 | 60% | 0 | - |
H Heward | 5 | 40% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Heywood | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
H Higenbottam | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 15 | 53% |
ZH Hill | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
R Hitchcock | 74 | 34% | 25 | 44% | 0 | - |
H Hockenhull | 26 | 38% | 7 | 43% | 0 | - |
P Hocking | 3 | 0% | 0 | - | 46 | 24% |
J Hockley | 4 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
S Holden | 16 | 31% | 3 | 67% | 0 | - |
N Holdsworth | 9 | 22% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
S Housden | 7 | 14% | 16 | 31% | 0 | - |
M Howell | 21 | 29% | 9 | 33% | 0 | - |
C Humphrey | 1 | 0% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
S Hunt | 16 | 25% | 2 | 100% | 0 | - |
A Hunter | 18 | 28% | 4 | 50% | 0 | - |
J Hunter | 27 | 26% | 9 | 56% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
S Indermaur | 0 | - | 19 | 16% | 0 | - |
C Jack | 6 | 17% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
P Jackson | 11 | 45% | 2 | 50% | 0 | - |
R Jackson | 17 | 41% | 3 | 67% | 0 | - |
P Jarratt | 3 | 33% | 0 | - | 29 | 24% |
P Jarvis | 18 | 22% | 15 | 40% | 0 | - |
I Jenkins | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
W Johnson | 48 | 35% | 13 | 54% | 0 | - |
J Jolly | 70 | 20% | 23 | 22% | 0 | - |
D Jones | 17 | 24% | 10 | 20% | 0 | - |
E Jones | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 10 | 20% |
G Jones | 11 | 73% | 2 | 50% | 0 | - |
M Jones | 74 | 35% | 19 | 42% | 0 | - |
P Jones | 2 | 50% | 12 | 58% | 0 | - |
RM Jones | 8 | 38% | 40 | 50% | 0 | - |
RE Jones | 63 | 33% | 18 | 44% | 0 | - |
RS Jones | 0 | - | 0 | - | 21 | 33% |
A Jordan | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
G Kean | 4 | 25% | 0 | - | 12 | 42% |
T Kemmann-Lane | 55 | 40% | 9 | 33% | 0 | - |
T King | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 6 | 50% |
R Kirby | 4 | 0% | 5 | 40% | 0 | - |
K Langford-Tejrar | 21 | 19% | 40 | 43% | 0 | - |
T Law | 43 | 28% | 26 | 31% | 0 | - |
EA Lawrence | 7 | 29% | 30 | 37% | 0 | - |
S Lee | 16 | 19% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
CJ Leigh | 17 | 35% | 17 | 41% | 0 | - |
S Leonard | 68 | 28% | 12 | 33% | 0 | - |
D Lewis | 3 | 33% | 0 | - | 23 | 43% |
I Lloyd | 0 | - | 0 | - | 2 | 50% |
H Lock | 7 | 0% | 35 | 23% | 0 | - |
M Long | 0 | - | 29 | 38% | 0 | - |
J Longmuir | 57 | 47% | 5 | 60% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
R MacLeod | 76 | 33% | 3 | 0% | 0 | - |
M Madge | 0 | - | 0 | - | 31 | 35% |
A Mageean | 4 | 75% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
FM Mahoney | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
PJ Major | 14 | 29% | 2 | 0% | 0 | - |
S Manchester | 53 | 13% | 21 | 38% | 0 | - |
J Manning | 6 | 67% | 2 | 50% | 0 | - |
O Marigold | 8 | 0% | 13 | 15% | 0 | - |
P Martinson | 52 | 19% | 20 | 30% | 0 | - |
C Masters | 4 | 75% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
R McAndrew | 5 | 20% | 32 | 38% | 0 | - |
A McCormack | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
D McCreery | 33 | 48% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C McDonagh | 80 | 15% | 22 | 14% | 0 | - |
K McDonald | 13 | 46% | 5 | 80% | 0 | - |
A McGlone | 34 | 35% | 11 | 27% | 0 | - |
N McGurk | 4 | 25% | 57 | 30% | 0 | - |
I McHugh | 4 | 50% | 33 | 42% | 0 | - |
L McKay | 12 | 8% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C Megginson | 8 | 38% | 10 | 20% | 0 | - |
R Merrett | 11 | 27% | 0 | - | 31 | 55% |
PA Metcalfe | 0 | - | 23 | 74% | 0 | - |
C Miell | 23 | 35% | 4 | 50% | 0 | - |
P Mileham | 17 | 12% | 5 | 20% | 0 | - |
H Miles | 79 | 27% | 19 | 32% | 0 | - |
M Milliken | 3 | 67% | 4 | 0% | 0 | - |
D Moore | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 39 | 49% |
R Morgan | 31 | 39% | 17 | 41% | 0 | - |
J Moss | 7 | 43% | 0 | - | 30 | 33% |
C Mulloy | 10 | 10% | 10 | 10% | 0 | - |
D Murray | 33 | 39% | 18 | 56% | 0 | - |
J Murray | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 12 | 50% |
B Muston | 0 | - | 10 | 30% | 0 | - |
MJ Muston | 1 | 100% | 12 | 75% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
R Newsome | 3 | 33% | 17 | 24% | 0 | - |
H Nicholls | 74 | 30% | 22 | 55% | 0 | - |
DR Nicholson | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
A Nilsson | 67 | 27% | 25 | 28% | 0 | - |
R Norman | 8 | 63% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
S Normington | 7 | 43% | 3 | 100% | 0 | - |
M Nunn | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
L Nurser | 4 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
L O'Brien | 21 | 10% | 7 | 43% | 0 | - |
H O'Connor | 63 | 27% | 11 | 45% | 0 | - |
A O'Doherty | 75 | 16% | 19 | 5% | 0 | - |
M Ollerenshaw | 59 | 19% | 21 | 14% | 0 | - |
H Orr | 0 | - | 0 | - | 12 | 8% |
C Osgathorp | 49 | 18% | 11 | 55% | 0 | - |
A Owen | 75 | 36% | 9 | 67% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
L Page | 41 | 12% | 5 | 0% | 0 | - |
N Palmer | 19 | 37% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
G Pannell | 72 | 29% | 16 | 44% | 0 | - |
SJ Papworth | 10 | 60% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
CJA Parker | 16 | 50% | 8 | 75% | 0 | - |
R Parker | 58 | 40% | 11 | 36% | 0 | - |
A Parkin | 7 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
J Parsons | 48 | 23% | 11 | 9% | 0 | - |
A Partington | 16 | 31% | 29 | 38% | 0 | - |
E Pearson | 7 | 43% | 10 | 50% | 0 | - |
KJ Peerless | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 8 | 50% |
L Perkins | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 18 | 22% |
R Perrins | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 16 | 6% |
A Phillips | 5 | 20% | 0 | - | 34 | 9% |
B Phillips | 22 | 14% | 45 | 42% | 0 | - |
M Philpott | 26 | 23% | 16 | 56% | 0 | - |
A Pinto | 5 | 20% | 4 | 25% | 0 | - |
C Pipe | 17 | 47% | 33 | 45% | 0 | - |
R Pipkin | 57 | 16% | 12 | 42% | 0 | - |
E Pleasant | 4 | 50% | 0 | - | 39 | 28% |
B Plenty | 76 | 36% | 31 | 45% | 0 | - |
S Poole | 13 | 23% | 32 | 19% | 0 | - |
N Pope | 19 | 5% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
H Porter | 5 | 40% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
N Praine | 13 | 38% | 13 | 31% | 0 | - |
D Prentis | 21 | 38% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C Preston | 0 | - | 5 | 60% | 0 | - |
A Price | 16 | 38% | 12 | 42% | 0 | - |
J Price | 28 | 32% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
I Radcliffe | 28 | 36% | 9 | 11% | 0 | - |
C Rafferty | 38 | 18% | 21 | 10% | 0 | - |
F Rafiq | 53 | 40% | 18 | 28% | 0 | - |
E Randle | 27 | 33% | 35 | 29% | 0 | - |
J Rann | 29 | 24% | 9 | 0% | 0 | - |
Z Raygen | 14 | 36% | 3 | 33% | 0 | - |
R Redford | 11 | 0% | 12 | 50% | 0 | - |
D Reed | 27 | 37% | 11 | 27% | 0 | - |
JC Reid | 19 | 21% | 15 | 13% | 0 | - |
L Renaudon | 3 | 33% | 0 | - | 28 | 43% |
S Rennie | 79 | 35% | 15 | 53% | 0 | - |
G Robbie | 50 | 42% | 20 | 35% | 0 | - |
K Robbie | 14 | 14% | 15 | 47% | 0 | - |
G Roberts | 14 | 36% | 52 | 50% | 0 | - |
J Roberts | 5 | 40% | 1 | 100% | 26 | 27% |
M Robins | 3 | 67% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
BS Rogers | 0 | - | 0 | - | 20 | 35% |
G Rollings | 17 | 47% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
DMH Rose | 9 | 56% | 4 | 50% | 0 | - |
P Rose | 6 | 67% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
JL Russell | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 2 | 50% |
M Russell | 71 | 14% | 32 | 19% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
R Sabu | 75 | 17% | 6 | 33% | 0 | - |
J Sargent | 30 | 37% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
R Satheesan | 4 | 0% | 0 | - | 58 | 12% |
K Savage | 85 | 35% | 20 | 35% | 0 | - |
M Savage | 6 | 17% | 0 | - | 58 | 22% |
K Saward | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 7 | 29% |
R Schofield | 1 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
A Scott | 59 | 8% | 30 | 13% | 0 | - |
M Scriven | 6 | 17% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
C Searson | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
M Seaton | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
M Seddon | 5 | 0% | 18 | 39% | 0 | - |
P Sedgwick | 14 | 36% | 41 | 29% | 0 | - |
G Self | 0 | - | 0 | - | 5 | 0% |
H Senior | 10 | 20% | 34 | 18% | 0 | - |
C Shearing | 16 | 38% | 14 | 50% | 0 | - |
C Sherratt | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 23 | 39% |
T Shields | 4 | 25% | 0 | - | 23 | 13% |
M Shrigley | 7 | 29% | 5 | 0% | 0 | - |
RC Shrimplin | 15 | 47% | 43 | 47% | 0 | - |
G Sibley | 13 | 38% | 59 | 41% | 0 | - |
L Simpson | 60 | 18% | 18 | 44% | 0 | - |
BJ Sims | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
P Singleton | 1 | 0% | 7 | 14% | 0 | - |
M Small | 48 | 23% | 7 | 29% | 0 | - |
A Smith | 96 | 32% | 10 | 20% | 0 | - |
D Smith | 53 | 32% | 8 | 38% | 0 | - |
H Smith | 15 | 7% | 12 | 33% | 0 | - |
J Somers | 24 | 21% | 50 | 30% | 0 | - |
D Spencer | 30 | 33% | 3 | 33% | 0 | - |
A Spencer-Peet | 72 | 33% | 24 | 50% | 0 | - |
P Staddon | 15 | 20% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
G Stallwood | 0 | - | 3 | 67% | 0 | - |
A Steen | 3 | 0% | 0 | - | 34 | 9% |
HR Stephens | 4 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
K Stephens | 13 | 23% | 21 | 24% | 20 | 10% |
K Stone | 0 | - | 3 | 0% | 0 | - |
M Sturgess | 24 | 42% | 4 | 25% | 0 | - |
A Sutton | 8 | 13% | 37 | 22% | 0 | - |
E Symmons | 5 | 20% | 3 | 33% | 0 | - |
J Symmons | 2 | 0% | 15 | 7% | 0 | - |
G Symons | 2 | 0% | 0 | - | 34 | 12% |
D Szymanski | 61 | 13% | 8 | 38% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
J Taylor | 6 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
KA Taylor | 56 | 25% | 18 | 28% | 0 | - |
K Taylor | 0 | - | 4 | 50% | 0 | - |
B Thandi | 74 | 38% | 19 | 26% | 0 | - |
G Thomas | 16 | 63% | 11 | 73% | 0 | - |
M Thomas | 5 | 60% | 10 | 20% | 0 | - |
N Thomas | 5 | 0% | 0 | - | 38 | 24% |
R Thomas | 0 | - | 33 | 42% | 0 | - |
S Thomas | 13 | 8% | 4 | 0% | 0 | - |
A Thompson | 4 | 50% | 6 | 17% | 0 | - |
F Thompson | 2 | 100% | 0 | - | 43 | 28% |
P Thompson | 54 | 28% | 12 | 17% | 0 | - |
C Tivey | 9 | 22% | 49 | 41% | 0 | - |
D Troy | 10 | 40% | 39 | 18% | 0 | - |
A Tucker | 73 | 30% | 18 | 56% | 0 | - |
S Tudhope | 42 | 26% | 7 | 71% | 0 | - |
J Tweddle | 34 | 18% | 3 | 0% | 0 | - |
Inspector/ Decision Maker | s78 planning appeals no. decided 2021/22 | s78 planning appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Householder appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Householder appeals % allowed 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals no. decided 2021/22 | Enforcement notice appeals % allowed 2021/22 |
G Underwood | 20 | 0% | 8 | 38% | 0 | - |
JA Vyse | 6 | 33% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
A Walker | 0 | - | 0 | - | 1 | 0% |
AJD Walker | 3 | 33% | 0 | - | 37 | 30% |
R Walker | 41 | 32% | 17 | 41% | 0 | - |
D Wallis | 15 | 20% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
R Walmsley | 46 | 17% | 12 | 25% | 0 | - |
S Warder | 12 | 8% | 6 | 33% | 0 | - |
PJG Ware | 7 | 43% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
SMJ Watson | 76 | 36% | 9 | 22% | 0 | - |
S Watson | 11 | 36% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
B Webb | 68 | 37% | 7 | 57% | 0 | - |
M Webb | 0 | - | 38 | 37% | 0 | - |
J Westbrook | 10 | 10% | 41 | 41% | 0 | - |
J Whalley | 0 | - | 0 | - | 4 | 75% |
AJ Wharton | 1 | 0% | 0 | - | 18 | 0% |
P Whelan | 24 | 46% | 6 | 50% | 0 | - |
P White | 9 | 22% | 9 | 67% | 0 | - |
M Whitehead | 5 | 40% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
J Whitfield | 3 | 33% | 0 | - | 23 | 9% |
J Wilde | 24 | 33% | 6 | 33% | 0 | - |
B Wilders | 5 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
G Wildgoose | 1 | 0% | 7 | 43% | 0 | - |
DA Wildsmith | 2 | 50% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
F Wilkinson | 76 | 26% | 18 | 33% | 0 | - |
ST Wilkinson | 31 | 42% | 2 | 50% | 0 | - |
J Williamson | 45 | 38% | 11 | 9% | 0 | - |
S Willis | 68 | 32% | 21 | 52% | 0 | - |
P Willmer | 3 | 33% | 38 | 39% | 0 | - |
P Willows | 5 | 0% | 0 | - | 34 | 29% |
J Wilson | 3 | 33% | 16 | 25% | 0 | - |
L Wilson | 63 | 27% | 23 | 26% | 0 | - |
K Winnard | 0 | - | 34 | 35% | 0 | - |
S Witherley | 18 | 33% | 30 | 63% | 0 | - |
T Wood | 37 | 30% | 8 | 13% | 0 | - |
M Woodward | 3 | 100% | 1 | 0% | 0 | - |
O Woodwards | 23 | 57% | 1 | 100% | 0 | - |
JF Woolcock | 7 | 0% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
M Worden | 3 | 100% | 0 | - | 0 | - |
E Worthington | 12 | 25% | 4 | 50% | 0 | - |
G Wraight | 70 | 24% | 20 | 40% | 0 | - |
G Wyatt | 65 | 25% | 13 | 38% | 0 | - |
D Wyborn | 57 | 35% | 14 | 14% | 0 | - |
D Young | 5 | 60% | 11 | 82% | 0 | - |
PINS notes accompanying the above data: 1. A decision maker is listed in the above table if they have made at least one decision in the relevant period. Cases where the Inspector reported to the Secretary of State are not included. |
Why not test out our service free for a month and find out for yourself how useful it can be. Just drop us a few details on our contact us form and we'll set things up.