At present about 80% of planning appeals are decided following an exchange of written representations and a site visit (the written method), 16% are decided following a hearing, and around 4% after an inquiry. We think that many of the appeals decided following a hearing could be dealt with equally well, and more quickly, by the written method without any reduction in the quality of the decision. Similarly, there are a small number of appeals that are decided following an inquiry that could be decided by the hearing procedure or occasionally by the written method.

To help appellants and LPAs choose the most appropriate method for an appeal, we have produced a list of indicative criteria which show whether an appeal is suitable to be decided following the written method, a hearing, or an inquiry. The list is set out below.

The case officer responsible for the appeal will write to the main parties if he/she considers, bearing in mind the indicative criteria, that the appeal is suitable for an alternative method. The letter will say that the appeal will proceed by the alternative method unless either main party insists on exercising their statutory right to be heard. We will allow the main parties fourteen days to respond giving reasons based on the indicative criteria why a hearing or an inquiry is required. Where either of the main parties exercises their right to be heard, a hearing or an inquiry will be arranged.

Please look at the indicative criteria carefully before deciding which procedure to choose. The written method uses fewer resources both for the Inspectorate and the parties than appeals decided following a hearing or an inquiry. This is because when deciding a case by the written representations method the Inspector has only to visit the site and surroundings prior to making a decision. This is quicker and simpler to organise and undertake than a hearing or inquiry. Our Inspectors give equal attention to every appeal they handle regardless of the procedure – indeed for simpler cases the written method enables them to focus exclusively on the merits of the appeal without having to prepare for and give attention to a hearing or an inquiry. All our Inspectors are experienced professionals, very carefully recruited and trained, and all, from the newest to the most experienced, undertake written representation appeals. We would urge you to use the written method wherever possible.

Indicative criteria to determine whether a Section 78 appeal is suitable to be decided following written representations, hearing or an inquiry.

Appeals considered suitable for the written procedure should satisfy all of the following criteria:

1. The appeal is not a gypsy and travellers case.

2. The appeal is not for an agricultural worker’s dwelling or similar proposal dependent on demonstrating a business need and financial viability.

3. There is no evidence that either party will wish to claim costs.

4. The appeal can be reasonably argued and understood by all parties using the written submissions, photographs, plans and Inspector’s site visit.

5. There is no evidence of need to cross-examine or take evidence under oath.

Appeals considered suitable for a hearing should satisfy all of the following:

6. They should not fall within the indicative criteria for written representations appeals.

7. The duration of the hearing will not normally last longer than one day.

8. There is no indication of a need for formal cross-examination or evidence taken under oath.

Appeals considered suitable for an inquiry should satisfy the following:

9. They should not fall within the indicative criteria described above for appeals by written representations or hearings.

Notwithstanding that those criteria may be met in either case, there being some other reason which justifies the holding of an inquiry as the more appropriate method.