Pre-inquiry meetings and what they settle

A pre-inquiry meeting, or in current practice a case management conference, is where the inspector fixes how the inquiry will run and what it will be about. It settles the main issues, the timetable, who gives evidence on what, which matters go to round table session rather than cross-examination, and the sitting day estimate. It settles nothing about the merits. An inspector will not indicate a view on the outcome and will not take evidence, and an advocate who tries to argue the case at the conference loses credibility for no return.

Why the inspector holds a meeting

The inquiries procedure rules made in 2000 provide for pre-inquiry meetings, and the independent review of planning appeal inquiries carried out in 2019 led the Planning Inspectorate to use early case management as standard rather than as an exception. The purpose is to compress the timetable by removing avoidable argument from the inquiry itself.

So the conference happens early, usually within weeks of the appeal being started, and it is conducted by the inspector who will hear the inquiry. The output is a note or set of directions recording what was agreed and what the parties must do by when.

That early timing has a practical consequence. Your team has to be appointed, your witnesses identified and your view of the main issues formed before the conference, which for a local authority with a vacancy in the enforcement or development management team is a real pressure.

Matters settled at the meeting

The agenda varies with the case, and the recurring items are these.

1. The main issues, expressed as a list the inspector will structure the inquiry and the decision around.
2. Whether there are matters not in dispute, and what goes into the statement of common ground.
3. Which topics are dealt with by cross-examination and which by round table discussion.
4. The identity and expertise of each witness, and the topics each will cover.
5. The timetable: statements of case, statement of common ground, proofs of evidence and summaries, rebuttals if any, core document list.
6. Conditions and any section 106 obligation, usually handled in a round table session with a draft provided well before the inquiry.
7. Site visit arrangements, including whether the visit is accompanied and what will be viewed.
8. Sitting days, the running order and the arrangements for closing submissions.

Round table sessions have expanded considerably. Conditions, obligations, housing land supply arithmetic and technical matters where the experts largely agree are now routinely handled that way, which shortens the inquiry and reduces the number of witnesses needing to attend throughout.

The timetable and why it matters more than it used to

The statement of common ground is the document that repays effort. Every fact, policy reference and technical input that both sides accept is a topic the inquiry does not need to hear. Agreeing the development plan policies that apply, the site's constraints, the planning history and the arithmetic of any numerical case can take a day off the sitting estimate.

Identifying the main issues early

The inspector's list of main issues shapes the decision letter, so arguing about it at the conference is time well spent.

Two errors recur. Parties present a long list of issues hoping to keep everything open, which the inspector will narrow anyway and which signals a lack of focus. Or they accept the authority's framing without noticing that it embeds an assumption, such as treating a question of harm as settled and only the balance as live.

Where the refusal followed a committee decision against officer advice, the main issues may be narrower than the refusal reasons suggest, because the officer's report is evidence of the authority's own technical position, as our note on committee refusals against officer advice explains. Say so at the conference rather than saving it for a proof.

Inspectors' conclusions in comparable appeals are useful in framing issues, and the approach in our note on using appeal decisions in a planning application applies equally to an appeal bundle. They are indicative of how the issues have been approached rather than binding.

Rule 6 parties and third party involvement

A third party may apply for status as a main party, which gives the right to call evidence and to cross-examine, and brings obligations: a statement of case, a proof, and attendance throughout.

The conference is where that status, and its scope, gets managed. An inspector will often limit a main party's involvement to the issues on which it has something distinct to say, to avoid duplication with the authority's case. Residents' groups taking that route should understand the commitment before applying for it, and our note on third party involvement in someone else's appeal sets out what it entails.

Interested persons who are not main parties can still appear and speak. The conference will usually set aside a slot for them, often in the first afternoon or the first evening, and that arrangement should be publicised locally.

Consequences of ignoring directions

Directions issued after a case management conference are not suggestions.

Late proofs, evidence that goes beyond the statement of case, witnesses swapped without notice and documents produced at the door all have consequences. The inspector may refuse to admit material, may reduce the weight given to it, may refuse an adjournment, and may take the conduct into account on costs. Costs can be awarded where a party has behaved unreasonably and caused another to incur wasted expense, and breach of directions is a standard route to that finding.

The quieter consequence is reputational. Inspectors and advocates work in a small field, and a party that cannot meet a timetable is a party whose evidence gets read more sceptically.

Preparing for the conference

Turn up with answers, not questions. Six things are worth having ready.

A draft list of main issues in your own words. The names, disciplines and availability of your witnesses, with the topics each will cover. A realistic sitting day estimate, erring on the shorter side. A view on which topics suit a round table session. A first draft of the statement of common ground, even an incomplete one, because the party that produces it controls the structure. And a draft set of conditions, which on a scheme likely to be allowed is the document that determines how usable the permission is.

Then make the case for the procedural outcomes you want, briefly. A conference is not an inquiry and an inspector running one has a list to get through.

As an illustrative example, an appeal against refusal of 180 dwellings on an edge of settlement site might reduce from six refusal reasons to three main issues at the conference, with landscape and highways taken by cross-examination, housing land supply and conditions taken round table, two witnesses dropped by each side, and the sitting estimate falling from eight days to five. That reduction is worth more than most of the arguments the witnesses would have made.

A statement of case has to be drafted from scratch. A well structured Planning Statement from the original application makes that drafting, and the job of identifying the issues, considerably faster.

This is general guidance rather than legal advice, so check the current procedural guidance and take advice on the particular appeal. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.