Round table sessions at a planning inquiry

A round table session inquiry topic is one the inspector deals with by discussion around a table rather than by cross-examination. Advocates do not lead their witnesses through a proof. The inspector chairs, asks the questions, and works through the issue with whoever at the table knows the answer.

Since the Rosewell review of planning appeal inquiries reported in 2019, inspectors have used the technique far more, and on a modern inquiry you should expect at least conditions and obligations to be handled this way. It rewards different preparation from cross-examination, and a team that prepares for one and gets the other loses ground quickly.

What a round table session is

The inquiry procedure allows the inspector to decide how each matter will be dealt with. A round table session is a topic-based discussion in which the inspector identifies the questions, invites contributions, and tests positions directly rather than through an advocate.

The formal characteristics are worth being clear about. Evidence given at a round table session is still evidence. The session is part of the inquiry, it is recorded in the same way, and what is agreed at the table is treated as agreed. It is less adversarial, not less consequential.

Advocates normally have a limited role. Some inspectors allow short questions at the end of a topic, others do not, and the position is usually set at the case management conference rather than on the day.

Topics commonly dealt with this way

Four categories come up repeatedly.

• Planning conditions. Working through a draft schedule condition by condition, testing each against the six tests in the Planning Practice Guidance and settling wording.
• Planning obligations. The heads of terms, the drafting, whether each obligation meets the statutory tests, and the completion timetable.
• Arithmetic. Housing land supply calculations, five-year supply components, trip generation figures and biodiversity metric outputs, where the dispute is about inputs rather than about judgement.
• Technical matters where the parties are close. Drainage design, ecological mitigation, arboricultural protection measures and highway details, once the experts have narrowed the gap in a statement of common ground.

What tends to stay with cross-examination is the material dispute: character and appearance, heritage harm, the planning balance, and any issue where a witness's credibility or the reliability of their method is in question.

Who sits at the table

The inspector decides, and the list is usually longer than an advocate would choose. The appellant's and the authority's relevant witnesses, any Rule 6 party, sometimes an interested person with a direct contribution, and the officers who hold the detail.

That last point catches teams out. On a conditions session the most useful person is whoever drafted the conditions and understands the triggers, which is often a case officer rather than a senior manager, and on a drainage session it is the engineer rather than the planning witness. Send the person who knows, not the person who is senior.

Where third parties are given a place at the table, their contributions are treated as evidence in the same way, and the practicalities of that are covered in our note on interested party representations at appeal.

Preparation that differs from cross-examination

A proof of evidence is written to be defended. A round table position is written to be used.

The preparation that works is a short, structured position on each sub-issue, with the document reference and the page for every figure you might be asked about. Not a narrative. A table.

For a conditions session, bring the draft schedule with three columns: the condition, the authority's position and yours, with a short reason for each difference. For an obligations session, bring the draft deed and the justification for each obligation against the statutory tests. For an arithmetic session, bring the calculation with its inputs and their sources, and be able to run an alternative on the spot.

Then decide in advance where you can concede and where you cannot, and get instructions on both. A round table session moves quickly, and a witness who cannot say whether a change of wording is acceptable holds up the whole session and irritates the inspector.

One more habit. Take your own note of what is agreed, and offer to circulate an agreed schedule after the session. Inspectors welcome it, and it prevents a disagreement later about what was settled.

Conditions and obligations sessions in practice

These two sessions produce most of the material the inspector actually needs, and they are the ones most often left to the end of an inquiry and then rushed.

Work through the conditions before the inquiry with the authority. Most disputes are about triggers rather than about principle: whether approval is needed before any development begins or before above-ground works, whether a scheme must be implemented before occupation of a phase or of the whole, and who approves what. Agreeing those in advance shortens the session to the two or three conditions that remain contested.

On obligations, the inspector will want to know that each one is necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. Have the evidence for each contribution to hand, with the policy or the project it funds identified. An obligation offered without that material will be disregarded whatever the parties have agreed between themselves.

Where the appeal turns partly on the planning merits, keep that case in the structured argument you have already made, and if you are relying on a Planning Statement submitted with the application, make sure its figures match what you will say at the table.

Managing a session that goes wide

Round table sessions drift. The inspector is exploring, the topics overlap, and an hour on conditions can turn into an hour on the planning balance.

Three responses help. Ask at the start for the scope of the session and the order of topics, so you know when you are outside it. Where a question moves into an issue reserved for cross-examination, say so politely and ask the inspector whether they want the answer now or in evidence. And if a concession is being sought on something you have no instructions on, ask for time rather than guessing.

Be careful with agreement by silence. If a figure or a proposition is put by the other side and nobody objects, the inspector may reasonably treat it as common ground. Say plainly when you do not accept something, even if you cannot deal with it fully at that moment.

When to ask for formal evidence instead

The procedure for each matter is the inspector's decision, and the time to influence it is the case management conference, not the morning of the session.

Ask for cross-examination where the issue is central to the outcome, where the primary facts are disputed rather than the judgement, where a witness's methodology needs testing in a way a discussion will not achieve, or where the other side's case rests on the recollection of one person. Put the request in writing with a reason, because an inspector weighing a procedural request wants to know what cross-examination would add that a discussion cannot.

Conversely, offer a round table where you and the authority are close and the difference is wording. It is faster, it is cheaper, and it removes an issue from the inspector's list.

Earlier decisions can be useful in showing how inspectors have approached a topic at inquiry, though they are indicative rather than binding, as set out in our note on using appeal decisions as evidence. Where an application has been recovered or called in, the procedure and the decision-maker change, which our note on recovered appeals and called-in applications explains.

One honest uncertainty. Practice varies between inspectors on how much questioning advocates may do at a round table, and the answer you get at one case management conference is not a rule for the next. Ask each time.

PlanScope drafts the supporting documents an appeal or application needs, structured to UK planning policy, so the drafting time goes into the argument rather than the narrative. Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports the site is likely to need.

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.