The Planning Inspectorate has updated its guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in planning appeals, applications and examinations, strengthening expectations around transparency, responsibility and data protection.
The guidance, which sets out a mandatory transparency regime for anyone using AI in casework, was first published in September 2024 and updated on 20 February 2026. It reflects what the Inspectorate describes as the “evolving capability and application of AI”. It confirms that parties may use AI to help prepare submissions, but only where this is done “properly and transparently”.
The update does not alter the core principle that AI can be used in the planning process, but only with clear disclosure and user responsibility. However, several elements have been tightened or expanded:
The updated guidance now sets out a more explicit structure for the use of AI in planning than the 2024 version in a four‑part statement that users must provide, specifying:
- that AI was used
- which tool was used
- what it was used for
- what checks were made and confirmation that the user “take[s] responsibility for the accuracy of the content”
The Inspectorate now explicitly warns that AI can generate “fake representations or evidence”, and that improper use could amount to “unreasonable behaviour” leading to an award of costs. The update reinforces that professional parties must comply with their professional codes of practice and remain responsible for accuracy and lawfulness. The 2026 version links directly to section 15 of the Procedural Guide on expert evidence.
The new text also includes a model declaration for members of the public using AI to draft or translate representations, emphasising responsibility for the final content.
The update adds a direct instruction: “Do not enter sensitive or personal information into public AI tools,” linking to the ICO’s definition of personal data. This is a more explicit privacy safeguard than in the 2024 version. The guidance now stresses that disclosure helps Inspectors “understand the source and handling of the material they are assessing”, supporting fair and well‑reasoned decisions.
1. You must declare when AI has been used
You must tell the Planning Inspectorate if AI was used to:
- draft or substantially rewrite text
- produce summaries or analysis
- generate or alter images or videos
- create any content beyond basic formatting or presentation
Routine tools (spellcheck, grammar suggestions, formatting, accessibility functions) do not need to be declared.
The guidance stresses a “golden rule” that "you must use AI responsibly and remain accountable for accuracy".
2. You must provide a short AI‑use statement
This can go in a covering email, letter, or within your submission.
It must include four elements:
1. That AI was used
2. Which tool was used** (e.g., Copilot, ChatGPT, Midjourney)
3. What it was used for and how - e.g., drafting part of an objection, generating an image, translating text
4. What checks you made and confirmation that you take responsibility for accuracy
The Inspectorate wants to understand the “source and handling” of material so decisions can be fair and transparent.
3. Professional parties have heightened obligations
Professionals must:
- take responsibility for accuracy and lawfulness
- comply with their professional codes of practice
- ensure expert evidence meets the standards in section 15 of the Procedural Guide
The guidance makes clear that improper AI use could amount to 'unreasonable behaviour' and lead to 'costs awards'.
4. Interested parties must also declare AI use
Members of the public may use AI to help draft or translate representations, but must include a short statement confirming:
- that AI was used
- what it was used for
- that they checked the content and take responsibility
The guidance provides a model wording.
5. You must not input personal or sensitive data into public AI tools
The guidance now explicitly warns: “Do not enter sensitive or personal information into public AI tools.”
6. The purpose: fairness, transparency, and avoiding delays
The Inspectorate explains that:
AI can generate inaccurate or fake text, images or evidence
- transparency helps inspectors assess material properly
- clear declarations reduce the risk of delay or additional burden
- misuse could lead to findings of unreasonable behaviour
Source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-of-artificial-intelligence-in-casework-evidence
