Government releases guidance on the use of AI in planning appeals. At a glance.
The Planning Inspectorate updated its AI guidance in February 2026. Here is what it says, what it means in practice, and how planningappeals.co.uk is built to align with it.
David Robinson
Chartered Architect & Co-founder, Planning Appeals
The Planning Inspectorate updated its guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in casework evidence in February 2026. If you are using AI tools in any part of your planning work — drafting representations, producing summaries, generating images — this guidance applies to you.
Here is what it says, what it means in practice, and how planningappeals.co.uk is built to align with it.
What the guidance says
PINS is not banning AI. The guidance is explicit that AI can be used positively when it is properly and transparently applied. What it requires is disclosure — a short statement, included in your covering email, letter, or submission, whenever AI has been used to draft or substantially rewrite text, produce a summary or analysis, generate or alter images or videos, or create content that goes beyond straightforward formatting.
You do not need to declare routine tools — spellcheckers, grammar suggestions, formatting functions. The threshold is substantive use: where AI has shaped the content of what you are submitting, say so.
The golden rule, in PINS' own words, is that you must use AI responsibly. It is your responsibility — not the tool's — to ensure the information is accurate and appropriate.
What to include in your declaration
PINS asks for three things: that AI was used, which tool was used, and what it was used for — including what checks you made and that you take responsibility for the accuracy of the content.
For professional parties, the bar is high. PINS expects professionals to take responsibility for accuracy and lawfulness, and to use AI in line with their professional body's code of practice. If you are a chartered planner, planning officer, planning agent or registered architect, check what your professional body's current guidance says alongside the PINS requirements.
The costs risk
The guidance is clear on one point that deserves emphasis: improper use of AI — submitting inaccurate, misleading, or unverified content — could be found to constitute unreasonable behaviour and open you to an award of costs. With the new "submit once" model in place for applications made on or after 1 April 2026, there is no opportunity to correct a poorly evidenced planning submission once the appeal is underway. The financial exposure is now a real consideration against tools that are being developed and advertised at a rapid rate.
How planningappeals.co.uk is built to align with this
It is clear from the PINS guidance — and from parallel developments in other industries and matters such as professional indemnity — that human verification and checking remains essential. At planningappeals.co.uk, we signpost you to cases relevant to your search and surface key matters that you can trace and check direct to source. We have built our tool with compliance in mind.
Our platform is designed around the principle of verifiability — the ability to trace every piece of information back to its original source. Every argument surfaced on our platform includes a "See source" passage drawn directly from the Inspector's decision letter. Every case links to the original published document. Our methodology sets out in detail how extraction works, where the limits are, and why the decision letter is always the authority.
In practical terms, this means planningappeals.co.uk is built to support the workflow the PINS guidance describes: use tools to identify relevant material, then verify against the source before it goes near a submission. The source link is always there. The responsibility — as PINS rightly notes — always sits with you.
We are keen to develop a genuinely useful tool to sit alongside professionals in the planning industry. If there is a feature or tool you would like to see, please do let us know.
At a glance: what to do
- Check whether AI tools you use for planning work fall within the disclosure requirement — drafting, summarising, and image generation are all in scope
- Include a short declaration in any submission where AI has played a substantive role
- Verify every policy reference, case citation, and factual claim against the original source document before submission
- If you use planningappeals.co.uk, use the "See source" and original document links as part of your verification workflow — not as a substitute for it
- Check your professional body's AI guidance alongside the PINS requirements
The full PINS guidance can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-casework-evidence
The world of planning is changing fast. We're faster.
Search current, up to date appeals — including the new 2026 case number formats — today at planningappeals.co.uk. Search, insight and resources.
Strengthen your next argument
Search 200,000+ appeal decisions. Inspector reasoning, traced back to the original application.
Related articles
Why local search is only half the story
Searching your LPA portal alone creates an informational echo chamber. Here's how integrating appeal intelligence builds a stronger, more authoritative planning case.
April 1st is the line in the sand — but where exactly is the line drawn?
The new PINS rules apply based on when your application was submitted to the LPA — not when you received your refusal or filed your appeal. Here's what that means in practice.
Avoiding the 'Unreasonable Behaviour' costs award
From February 2026, PINS has widened what counts as unreasonable behaviour. With the 'Submit Once' model, a misleading claim carries real financial consequences.