The statement of case at a planning inquiry

A statement of case at a planning inquiry is the document that sets out the full particulars of the case a party proposes to put, together with a list of the documents that party intends to refer to or put in evidence. It is not the evidence itself. It is the fence around the evidence, and the practical consequence of filing a narrow one is that you may be held to it while your opponent roams.

The planning inquiry statement of case is filed early, usually well before the technical work is finished, which is exactly why it needs drafting with care rather than dictation.

What the statement of case must contain

The inquiries procedure rules require full particulars of the case and a list of documents. Take both requirements literally.

Full particulars means the issues you say arise, your position on each, and the reasons for that position. It does not mean a rehearsal of the appeal decision history or a restatement of the refusal reasons. An inspector reading a good statement of case can write the list of main issues from it.

The document list is the part most often treated as an afterthought. It should include the development plan policies relied on, the national policy and guidance passages, any appeal decisions, any technical standards, the application documents, and the correspondence you intend to rely on. Listing a document does not oblige you to use it. Failing to list one you later want can oblige you to seek permission to introduce it.

Write it so that the reasons for refusal are answered head on. Where the council has given three reasons and you can only answer two, say what you propose to do about the third rather than staying silent.

Deadlines set by the inquiry rules

The timetable runs from the start date the Planning Inspectorate sets, and the procedure rules fix the intervals. Statements of case are due within a period measured from that start date, and proofs of evidence and summaries follow later, ahead of the inquiry itself.

The Inspectorate has revised inquiry timetables in recent years, with earlier case management and shorter overall programmes, so read the current procedural guide and the start date letter rather than working from a remembered figure. Where the appeal is being handled under an expedited arrangement, the intervals are shorter again.

Three habits protect the programme.

1. Diary every deadline from the start date letter on the day it arrives, including the case management conference if one is set.
2. Commission the expert work against those dates rather than against the inquiry date.
3. Ask for an extension in writing and early where one is really needed, because retrospective explanations rarely work.

The procedural choice that produced this timetable is itself a decision worth revisiting, and the considerations are set out in the guidance on choosing between written reps, a hearing or an inquiry.

How it differs from a proof of evidence

The two documents do different jobs and are written by different people.

A proof that ranges outside the statement of case invites an objection. A statement of case drafted so broadly that it covers everything invites a direction to particularise. The workable position sits between the two: identify every issue you may need, state your position on each in a sentence or two, and reserve the detail for the proof.

Documents to list and why the list binds you

The list serves the inspector, the other parties and the inquiry programme. It is how everyone knows what the core documents will be and who is producing them.

Include the adopted local plan policies by number and the relevant supporting text, the national policy passages with their edition stated, any supplementary planning documents, the committee report and any officer recommendation, the technical reports relied on with their dates, and any appeal decisions. Where you intend to rely on an appeal decision, say what you say it shows. An inspector will not treat another inspector's decision as binding, and describing it as indicative of how the issue has been approached is both accurate and more persuasive.

Where the technical evidence is not finished, list the report by name and note that it is to follow with an expected date. That is far better than omitting it and producing it late.

The supporting documents that were submitted with the application, including the Planning Statement, usually sit in the core document list, and their internal consistency will be tested. A statement that argued one thing at application stage and another at inquiry is a gift to the other side.

Rule 6 parties and their statements

A third party granted rule 6 status becomes a full party to the inquiry, with the right to file a statement of case, call evidence, cross-examine and make submissions. Residents' associations, parish councils and campaign groups are the usual applicants.

Their statement of case matters to you for two reasons. It tells you which issues will be argued by someone other than the council, which is often a different list. And it shows whether they intend to call expert evidence, which changes your own witness requirements.

Read it as carefully as the council's. A rule 6 party frequently pursues an issue the council has dropped, and an appellant who prepared only against the refusal reasons can find the inquiry running on ground they had not covered. Where the issues overlap, a statement of common ground can narrow them, and the practice is set out in the guidance on statements of common ground at hearings and inquiries.

Amending the case later

The rules allow a case to develop, and inspectors are used to positions shifting as evidence firms up. What they resist is a new case arriving late enough to prejudice another party.

If your position changes, say so in writing as soon as it does, explain what has changed and why, and offer whatever the other side needs to deal with it. A short supplementary statement filed six weeks before the inquiry is usually accommodated. The same material appearing for the first time in cross-examination is usually not.

Adding a new witness, a new topic or a substantial new document close to the inquiry can also attract an application for costs on grounds of unreasonable behaviour, whichever party does it.

Consequences of an inadequate statement

Four things follow from a thin statement of case. The inspector's list of main issues may be framed without your best point in it. You may have to seek permission to rely on documents you did not list. The other side's proofs will be written against a target you have left undefined, which usually means they define it for you. And where late material causes an adjournment or wasted preparation, a costs application becomes realistic.

The cure is unglamorous. Draft the statement of case as if it were the skeleton of your closing submissions, with the issues in the order you want the inspector to think about them, and the reasons for refusal answered one by one. Then write the proofs to fill it in. The conditions an inspector might impose if the appeal succeeds are worth anticipating too, as set out in the guidance on conditions imposed by an inspector after an appeal is allowed.

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