Case management conferences and the inquiry timetable

A case management conference is the point at which a planning inquiry stops being an argument about everything and becomes an argument about three or four things. The inspector holds it early, usually by video and usually within a few weeks of the start date, and the output is a note recording the main issues, the procedure for each of them and a timetable with dates for statements of case, statements of common ground, proofs of evidence and the inquiry itself. Treat it as the most important hour of the appeal, because the issues identified there are the issues you will be heard on.

Turn up with a position on each item, not with questions.

What a case management conference decides

The conference is not a hearing and no evidence is given. The inspector is managing the case, and the agenda is predictable enough to prepare for line by line.

Expect decisions on the main issues, the length of the inquiry, how many witnesses each party will call and on what topics, which matters can be dealt with by round table discussion instead of cross examination, the dates in the timetable, the core documents list, arrangements for the site visit, whether a programme officer is needed, and the mechanics for draft conditions and the planning obligation.

The inspector will also ask whether anything can be removed. A reason for refusal the council no longer defends, an issue resolved by a revised plan, a technical matter capable of being agreed in a statement of common ground: each one taken out shortens the inquiry and reduces cost on both sides. Come prepared to concede the things you were going to lose.

Rule 6 parties, which are third parties granted a formal role, are usually invited, and their scope is often defined at this stage. That matters because an unconstrained objector group can add days of evidence, and our note on what objectors can do once a planning appeal starts sets out the role from their side.

Identifying the main issues early

The main issues come from the refusal notice, the statements of case and the inspector's own reading of the policy position. They are rarely identical to the reasons for refusal.

A refusal with five reasons can reduce to two main issues, because three of the reasons turn on the same policy conflict, or because two are capable of resolution by condition. The reverse also happens: a single reason for refusal about character can generate separate issues on scale, materials, layout and the effect on a heritage asset.

Draft your own list before the conference and bring it. An inspector who hears a clear, short formulation of the issues from one party often adopts it, with adjustments. The party that arrives without a list argues the other side's framing for the rest of the appeal.

Reading the refusal properly is the groundwork, and our guide to reading a refusal notice and turning it into a plan covers that step.

Topic order and witness programming

Topic order decides how the inquiry runs. Policy and principle first, then the technical topics in a sequence that lets each witness appear once and leave.

The programming constraints are practical. Expert witnesses have other commitments. A highways witness who has to attend on two separate days costs twice as much as one who appears on a single day. Where two parties call witnesses on the same topic, they should be programmed back to back so the inspector hears both while the material is fresh.

One tactical point. Asking for a round table on a topic signals confidence that the evidence is agreed or nearly agreed. Asking for cross examination on everything signals the opposite and sometimes irritates an inspector who has a timetable to hold.

Proofs of evidence and summaries

The inquiries procedure rules set the deadline for proofs of evidence, which must be submitted a set period before the inquiry opens, and require a summary where the proof exceeds a stated length. Four weeks before, with summaries for proofs over 1,500 words, is the familiar pattern. Check the current rules and the inspector's own timetable, since the timetable can be tighter than the rules.

Write the proof to the main issues as defined at the conference, not to the refusal notice. A proof organised around the inspector's issues is easy to follow and easy to adopt in the decision. A proof organised around the reasons for refusal makes the inspector do the translation.

Keep rebuttal proofs strictly responsive. A rebuttal that introduces new evidence invites an application for an adjournment and, occasionally, an application for costs.

Documents, bundles and the core list

The core documents list agreed at the conference is the set the inspector will actually read. Everything else is background that may never be opened.

Four habits save time at the inquiry:

• Agree a single joint core documents bundle rather than two parallel sets, with continuous pagination and an index that matches.
• Provide it electronically with internal bookmarks, and bring the number of hard copies the inspector asks for and no more.
• Cite documents in proofs by core document number and page, never by title alone.
• Keep policy extracts complete enough to be fair, including the parts that do not help you, because selective quotation gets noticed.

Where appeal decisions are relied on, present them as indicative of how inspectors have approached an issue rather than as binding precedent, and include the full decision rather than an extract.

Round table sessions against cross examination

Round tables have become the default for conditions, obligations and several technical topics since the procedural reforms, and they work well when both sides prepare.

The format is a discussion chaired by the inspector, with advocates and experts in the room and no formal questioning. It is quicker, costs less and is less adversarial. It also exposes a party whose expert cannot answer a direct question from the inspector without instruction, which is worth considering before you ask for one.

For conditions, come with an agreed draft schedule showing which conditions are agreed, which are disputed and why, with the precise wording in dispute underlined. The same for the planning obligation: a draft agreement with the heads of terms resolved saves a day.

Keeping to the timetable

The timetable set at the conference is the one the inspector expects to be met, and slippage has consequences that fall on the party responsible.

Late evidence can be refused admission, or admitted with an adjournment and a costs application attached. A witness who becomes unavailable close to the inquiry is a problem for your case, not for the inspector's diary. Where a date cannot be met, apply early and in writing with a reason and a proposed alternative, rather than letting the date pass.

Build your internal programme backwards from the proof deadline, with time for the statement of common ground, counsel's review and the client's sign off. The Planning Statement and technical documents from the application stage are the raw material, but a proof is a different document with a different purpose and it takes longer to write than people allow.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.