Declaring conflicts of interest in planning reports

A conflict of interest in a planning report is not a question of whether you would actually be swayed. It is a question of whether a reasonable reader, knowing what you know, would think your independence was at risk. That test is why the professional codes require disclosure rather than self-assessment, and why the honest answer to most borderline cases is to write the connection down and let the client and the council decide.

The awkward part is that planning consultancy mixes roles that other professions keep apart.

Where the codes address independence

Every institute a planning report author might belong to deals with this, in similar terms and with different mechanics.

The planning institute's code requires members to act with competence, honesty and integrity, to avoid acting where a conflict arises, and to disclose any interest that might affect their advice. The surveying institute's conduct rules and its separate professional statement on conflicts require a member not to advise where there is a conflict unless informed consent has been obtained and the conflict can be managed. The ecology and archaeology institutes each carry codes with duties of objectivity and a requirement not to misrepresent findings.

Two common features are worth noting. The duty runs to the profession and the public as well as the client. And disclosure alone does not always cure the problem: some conflicts cannot be managed, and the only answer is to decline.

Author, adviser and advocate

Planning work involves three distinct roles, and much of the confusion comes from doing all three on the same instruction.

The author of a technical report produces evidence. Their duty is to describe what they found, including the parts that do not help. The adviser interprets that evidence for the client and recommends a course of action, which legitimately involves judgement about risk and tactics. The advocate presents the client's case and argues it, which is a partisan function and properly so.

A noise report written by someone who has already advised the client that the scheme is viable is not automatically compromised. But the author should be able to say what they would have written if the advice had gone the other way. Where they cannot, the roles have collapsed.

The practical discipline is separation within the document. Keep the survey, the assessment and the conclusion in sections that could be read by someone who disagrees with you, and keep the recommendation on what to do next in a covering letter rather than in the report.

Conflicts that arise in small teams

Most conflicts in this field are mundane rather than dramatic.

The recurring ones are a practice that advises a council on its validation list and also acts for applicants in that district, an individual who worked at the local planning authority within the last few years and is now assessing a site they once handled, a reviewer asked to check work produced by a colleague, a personal interest in land near the site, and a fee arrangement that pays more if permission is granted.

That last one deserves particular attention. Contingent or success-based fees are incompatible with giving expert evidence, and the expert witness practice statements say so directly. They are also poor practice for any report intended to inform a decision, because the incentive is visible on the face of the arrangement.

Where a practice acts for parties on opposite sides of the same question, the position is covered in more detail in our note on conflicts of interest when consultants advise both sides.

What to declare, and where it goes

Put the declaration in the front matter of the report, alongside the competence statement, not in an appendix.

A workable declaration covers six things. Who instructed you and when. The scope of the instruction, including what you were asked not to do. Any previous involvement with the site, the applicant or an objector. Any financial or personal interest in the outcome. The basis of the fee, with a statement that it is not contingent on the outcome. And a short statement that the opinions expressed are your own and reflect your professional judgement.

Six sentences. It takes ten minutes to write and it removes an entire category of cross-examination.

For a peer review or sign-off, add one more element: what you relied on without independently verifying. A reviewer who signs a draft based on survey data supplied by someone else should say so, and our note on signing off an AI-assisted draft sets out what that responsibility involves.

Duties when giving evidence at an inquiry

Evidence at an inquiry or hearing is different in kind from a report submitted with an application.

An expert giving evidence owes an overriding duty to the tribunal that takes precedence over any duty to the client who is paying. That means evidence has to be independent, uninfluenced by the pressures of the proceedings, and has to state the facts on which the opinion is based, including facts that detract from it. Where a question falls outside the expert's expertise, they must say so. Where their view changes after the proof of evidence is submitted, they must communicate that change.

The practical consequences appear in the proof of evidence itself. A declaration of truth and of understanding of the duty is expected. Material assumptions have to be stated. And the range of opinion on a contested point should be acknowledged rather than suppressed, with reasons for preferring one view.

Inspectors notice when a proof reads as advocacy. The weight given to it drops, and the cross-examination is harder.

Client pressure and how to record it

It usually arrives as a suggestion rather than an instruction. Could the sentence about the roost be shortened. Is the sensitivity really high. Does the appendix need to include the failed monitoring period.

Handle it in three steps. Ask for the request in writing, or confirm it in writing yourself with a short note of what was asked. Explain what you can and cannot change, distinguishing presentation, which is negotiable, from findings, which are not. And keep the original version, dated.

Where a change is legitimate, make it and say why. Where it is not, decline in writing and offer the alternative: a covering letter from the client setting out their own view alongside your report. That arrangement satisfies most clients and preserves the integrity of the document.

Contemporaneous notes are the only protection that works. Memory is not evidence, and a dispute about what was asked for is always reconstructed years later.

Withdrawing from an instruction

Sometimes the answer is to stop. The situations that call for it are a conflict that cannot be managed by disclosure, a client who requires findings to be altered, an instruction that has drifted outside your competence, or the discovery of a prior involvement that was not apparent at the outset.

Do it properly. Notify the client in writing with a factual statement of the reason. Preserve confidentiality over everything learned during the instruction, which survives the end of it. Where a report or proof has already been submitted, tell the council or the inspectorate that you are no longer the author, without explaining why. And return or secure the client's material.

Withdrawal is rare and uncomfortable, and it is also the strongest professional signal available. Reviewers listed in a professional directory are asked to apply exactly this judgement when they are offered work, and the report types that carry a legal competence requirement across the full set of report types are the ones where it matters most.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check your own institute's current code and any client-specific requirements 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. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.