Board meeting minutes 24 July 2025 - The Planning Inspectorate
Updated 15 January 2026
Applies to England
© Crown copyright 2026
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/board-meeting-minutes-the-planning-inspectorate/board-meeting-minutes-24-july-2025-the-planning-inspectorate
Minutes 23rd September 2025
| Title of meeting | Planning Inspectorate Board Meetings |
| Date | 24 July 2025 |
| Venue | Virtual |
| Chair | Trudi Elliott (TE), Non-Executive Director (NED) |
| Present | |
| Adrian Penfold (AP), Non-Executive Director (NED) | |
| Baljit Dhillon (BD), Non-Executive Board Apprentice | |
| Oliver Munn (OM), Non-Executive Director (NED) | |
| Paul Morrison (PM), Chief Executive | |
| Graham Stallwood (GS), Chief Operating Officer | |
| Rachel Graham (RG), Chief Digital Information Officer | |
| Rebecca Phillips (RP), Interim Chief Planning Inspector | |
| Joanne Butcher (JB), Chief Finance Officer | |
| Sean Canavan (SC), Chief Strategy Officer | |
| Hayley Kelly (HK), Chief People Officer (until item 8) | |
| Will Burgon (WB), Director of Planning, MHCLG |
| In attendance |
| Full meeting | |
| Corporate Governance Officer (NP), minutes and actions |
| Attending for specific items | |
| Senior Media and External Affairs Manager (GL) (item 6) | |
| Head of Delivery, Productivity and Workforce (MCH) (item 7) | |
| Service Owner Local Plans (AM) (item 8) | |
| Sarah Scannell (Birmingham City Council) (item 8) | |
| Paul Barnard (Plymouth City Council) (item 8) | |
| Tom Smith (TS) (MHCLG) (item 9) | |
| Head of Data and Performance (AB) (item 9) | |
| Head of Digital (AW) (item 9) | |
| Innovation Lead (JG) (item 9) |
| Observer | |
| Head of Delivery, Productivity and Workforce (MC) |
| Apologies | |
| Emir Feisal (EF), Non-Executive Director (NED) |
1. 1.0 - Welcome and Declaration of Interests
1.1 The Chair called for Declarations of Interest, of which there were none.
2. 2.0 - Minutes of June Board meeting, corporate action tracker Minutes
2.1 No further comments were received for the part one and part two of the March Board minutes.
2.2 No further updates were provided for the action tracker.
Agreed:
2a) The June Board minutes parts one and two are an accurate record of the meeting.
3. 3.0 Audit and Risk Assurance Committee (ARAC) Chair update
3.1 ARAC Chair gave apologies.
4. 4.0 CEO update
4.1 PM provided an update on various topics, including July performance which is particularly strong with decisions issued potentially exceeding 2000. OM congratulated GS and team on the backlog reduction news.
4.2 Negotiations are taking place with unions regarding pay, with a formal offer made.
4.3 The Accounting Officer (AO) meeting with WB and colleagues focussed on underspends and business planning and outreach to colleagues on government missions. The department requested early declaration of any budget underspends.
4.4 Early-stage collaborations are taking place with Jonathan Mills regarding the clean energy mission and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs).
4.5 TE updated the Board on the chair recruitment process, which will go live on July 28th, and all members are encouraged to advocate for the role.
4.6 The NEDs provided updates on their interactions with various networks, including the LGBT and disability networks, the Sustainability and Environment Network, and the gender pay gap (GPG) task group. OM has joined the LGBT network and Disability network meetings on a regular basis. AP is engaged with the Sustainability network. BD has contacted networks and will be engaging in due course. TE is engaged with the Gender Pay Gap (GPG) taskforce and is in conversation with the Chairs of the Women’s network.
Actions:
4a) HK to report back to the Board on the progress and outcome of the GPG task group.
5. 5.0 MHCLG update
5.1 WB provided an update on the Planning Infrastructure Bill, amendments, consultations and National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) and spending review.
5.2 The Planning Infrastructure Bill is in committee stage in the Lords, with royal assent targeted for November.
5.3 Amendments on the Nature Restoration Fund were tabled, with positive feedback from stakeholders.
5.4 Several consultations are closing, including planning committee delegation and statutory consultees.
5.5 NDMPs will be non-statutory, with consultation likely in October and implementation aimed for March. PM asked WB to keep the Board updated on progress and what this will mean for the Inspectorate.
5.6 The department is confident about the spending review outcome and three-year business planning. The aim is to understand budget requirements for a three-year period.
5.7 There has been positivity around the pragmatic approach to the Sheffield Local Plan, WB suggested this is used as case study on adjustments to support a sound plan.
6. 6.0 Stakeholder and customer engagement
6.1 GL outlined the comms team’s approach to explaining processes and supporting staff, especially in the context of Crown Land applications. Risk assessments are conducted for contentious cases. The communications team will be involved early in the conferences and will monitor media coverage.
6.2 The first crown land case has been received; GL and the Comms lead are working with the Service Owner to set out the process and steps required. Linked in has been used to share tips on the crown land process.
6.3 WB advocated for transparency and support for staff and being proactive in the space using webinars and commentary, whilst maintaining impartiality. HK and RP emphasised the need to support individuals affected by high-profile cases and BD suggested creating case studies for Inspectors to help with learning and support. RP explained there is also learning and information we can use from the section 62a process to support this new case type.
6.4 AP highlighted the importance of constructive engagement with local groups, setting out the role of the Inspector and the Inspectorate and the responsibilities.
7. 7.0 Balanced scorecard
7.1 MCH presented the performance dashboard, highlighting successes and areas for focus. The transition to the new style dashboard is now complete. A new performance reporting lead will join in September.
7.2 MCH explained the key successes include a reduction in the volume of planning written representations cases over 20 weeks, strong output in applications and rights of way both services are ahead of target, the number of upheld complaints is below the target across all services. Productivity is on a positive trajectory, GS and TW will review and reset the productivity target as the current target has been met.
7.3 Intake volumes are below forecast across all services except appeals, as a result outputs in infrastructure and local plans are below the forecast. Unit costs are above the baseline due to depreciation and overheads.
7.4 OM and AP questioned the causes of low intake in local plans (LPs) and unit cost calculations, prompting discussion about recruitment and resource allocation. PM explained the LPAs are considering when to submit LPs ahead of the new reforms. AM and team are engaging with LPAs through stakeholder sessions to understand concerns. TE also reflected resourcing in LPAs could also have an impact.
7.5 The Board acknowledged the data improvements and move to MiPINS as a reporting tool and thanked all involved.
Actions:
7a) JB to prepare a paper to clarify the calculation and management use of unit costs, including the impact of depreciation and overheads, for future board review.
8. 8.0 Shared resource (Local Plans and Local Planning Authorities (LPAs))
8.1 SC introduced the paper on collaboration with local planning authorities. SS from Birmingham City Council and PB from Plymouth City Council joined the meeting.
8.2 Proposals were discussed for secondments between the Inspectorate and LPAs, benefits would include strategic planning and training programmes, a system-wide collaboration and improved plan-making. SS and PB advocated for reciprocal secondments and incentives for LPAs, emphasising the need for forward planning work programmed and resourcing and mutual benefit.
8.3 AM and RP discussed timing and training benefits, noting alignment with the new local plan system would be beneficial. Time will be needed to bring people in to test the understanding and design.
8.4 AP suggested a cohort approach for seconded staff and creating opportunities for the cohort to share experiences with each other and colleagues. OM supported experimentation and iterating as we learn more and felt LPs was most promising.
8.5 For this to work, TE said Local Government need to be able to backfill, we need to think upfront about promotion opportunities and capacity challenges. More work is needed around how the whole system will be resourced.
8.6 WB expressed support and focus on LPs, WB said we need to be clear about timelines and developing the model as soon as possible for pilot.
Agreed:
8a) The Board endorsed the initiative with emphasis on ensuring system-wide resourcing, development opportunities and reciprocal benefits.
Actions:
8b) GS, AM and MHCLG colleagues to organise a session with local authorities after August to review assumptions and gather direct intelligence on local plan intake and output expectations.
8c) GS and AM to report back to the Board progress of the reciprocal secondments between the Inspectorate and LPAs.
9. 9.0 AI deep dive (MHCLG and Inspectorate)
9.1 TS from MHCLG provided an overview of the AI directorate’s work, including support for local government, digital transformation, and advanced analytics. He highlighted various projects and the importance of building strong AI foundations.
9.2 RG, JG, AW and AB presented the Inspectorate’s AI strategy, focusing on becoming an AI-ready organisation, using AI to solve business problems, and ensuring safe and responsible use of AI. They discussed various initiatives, including Co-pilot adoption, data maturity assessment, and AI governance. A governance framework and comms plan in place to build trust and confidence.
9.3 The Board discussed productivity gains, scaling challenges, and the importance of safe, ethical AI use. Examples were shared of successful AI pilots, including transcription tools and document redaction.
Agreed:
9a) RG, JG, AW and AB to continue rollout and measure productivity gains and ensure there is robust governance and communication around AI use.
10. 10.0 AOB, review of meeting, key points for the blog
10.1 AOB:
- Environmental and sustainability reporting to be discussed at November board.
- September board to be held in person at Bristol Bridge office.
- Blog volunteers confirmed: Paul and Ollie.