Claire Sherratt, an Inspector Profession Lead, explains how we decide which procedure your appeal should follow and why headline rates of allowed appeals don’t tell the full story.
One of the things I enjoy about my role is that I get to meet people across the planning system, each with their own unique perspective from their own experience of the appeal process.
The feedback we get, be it from meetings, conferences, webinars, our stakeholder survey or our customer teams, all helps us make improvements. And it's clear to me that we’re all working towards a better service, whatever our perspective.
However, we regularly hear views along the lines of:
“We know we’ve got less chance of winning if our case is decided by written representations. Written representations are a downgrade compared to a case dealt with by a hearing or inquiry.”
That’s something I can’t agree with.
Let’s look at the ‘quality’ of decision making via each procedure before we get to the ‘chance of the appeal being successful’.
Quality transcends procedureAppeals can be decided via three procedures: written representations, hearings and inquiries (see Notes for full explanation of each).
Inspectors take great pride in the quality of their decisions, whatever the procedure. When first joining the Planning Inspectorate, inspectors are required to undertake rigorous training, part of which includes submitting their decisions for reading by experienced inspectors to ensure they are of the high quality necessary.
Outside of any training, the quality assurance of decisions continues, a process carried out by our most experienced inspectors. As a larger volume of our appeals are determined by written representations, they naturally also form the greater proportion of decisions that are quality assured. The outcomes show that the quality of decisions is high across all procedures – regardless of procedure type, you can rest assured that any decision will be carefully considered.
Now, about that ‘chance of success’.
A numbers game?Let me take the point that an appeal proceeding by the written representations procedure is more likely to be dismissed by an inspector. What does the data tell us? (See Table 2.4a in Annual time series tables Quarter 4 2025/2026 for S78 planning appeals)
In 2025/26:
Written reps allowed: 30% (of 9,522 decided)
Hearings allowed: 53% (of 416 decided)
Inquiries allowed: 72% (of 159 decided)
Overall allowed : 31% (of 10,097 decided)
So, on the face of it, the perception is correct – the allowed rate for appeals following the written representations procedure is lower. But it is a little more subtle and complicated than simply looking at these statistics
For the majority of appeals, the written representations procedure is chosen as the most appropriate (some 94.3% in 2025/26). In most cases the issues can be clearly understood from the evidence and are not complex enough that an inspector will need to test the evidence or seek any clarification through discussion, questioning or formal examination before reaching a considered judgement.
I believe it is the nature of these cases and the less complex evidence required to support them, that leads, in the majority of these cases (70% in the last financial year), to an outcome that is the same decision as that made originally by the local planning authority (LPA). Both the LPA and inspector are usually assessing the evidence against the same relevant policy context. . Generally, a site visit and the appeal documents are sufficient to arrive at a sound decision. Importantly, the inspector will carefully consider all of the evidence before them.
By comparison to the substantial number of s78 appeals that proceed by written representations, a very low proportion are determined by way of a hearing (just 4.1% in 2025/26) and even less by way of an inquiry (only around 1.6%) The appeals that are decided via the hearing and inquiry routes, are usually far more complex. Critically, the appointed inspector will want to test some or all of the evidence through questioning or seek to clarify matters. It may be because:
evidence is technical in nature it requires specialist knowledge and the inspector thinks it will help them make a sound decision if they hear from specialist witnesses an appeal has reached us because of non-determination (an LPA not making a decision within the time limit).For an inquiry, where the issues will be the most complex, formal advocacy is required, and local interest is usually the highest. . The inspector will decide how best to examine the evidence. An inquiry might be a mix of oral evidence and cross-examination for some topic areas, round table discussions or written statements for others.
In these cases, the inspector will generally end up making a decision with far more information than was available to the LPA and following formal cross examination of some or all of the evidence as considered necessary; this contributes to the bigger variance between the LPA and inspector decisions, and the higher allowed rates for these few appeals.
Whichever procedure is chosen as being the most appropriate, you can be sure that you’re getting an independent, inspector-led, impartial determination of your appeal, based on the evidence before the inspector and having regard to the relevant policy considerations.
Method in the madnessSo how do we decide which procedure a case should follow?
Put simply, the chosen procedure reflects the nature of the case. Both the appellant and the LPA will tell us what procedure they consider appropriate and why. Using guidance, an initial view will be taken on which procedure appears to be the most appropriate and the parties will be informed. This is kept under review by the appointed inspector and can be changed if a case reveals itself to be more or less complex further down the line.
We match the case to the most appropriate procedure. We don’t give them a hierarchy or treat one as requiring any lesser consideration. Both casework teams and inspectors approach every case with the impartiality, expertise and fairness that the inspectorate is known for.
As set out above, the written representation route is the one chosen as being most appropriate for the vast majority of planning appeals. That’s not to say that the appeal case itself is somehow clear cut or does not still have a level of complexity, just that the evidence does not need additional probing and testing before the inspector can reach a robust decision.
The bottom line is that if your written representation case became an inquiry, it wouldn’t actually be any more likely to succeed simply because there is an opportunity to present evidence orally. The considerations and policy framework in which the inspector will make their decision remain the same. It will however, cost more time and money for all parties involved.
How to get aheadA simpler and faster route for written representation appeals has recently been introduced. Please do familiarise yourself with the guidance before submitting an appeal. In short, these appeals will only be considered based on the evidence submitted with the original application made to the LPA. Most will be determined this way with no opportunity to submit additional evidence.
If there is one thing you can therefore do to give your appeal the best chance of success, it is to submit the best available evidence at the application stage.
As I said at the start, I love hearing from so many people involved in all the different areas of planning and understanding what goes into making the decisions that keep the system working and evolving. I hope this blog gives you some useful insight into how we make decisions on your appeal.
Notes:Types of procedure:
Written representations - the Inspector will decide the appeal based on written material provided by all parties. The Inspector will usually visit the appeal site although in some cases the visit may be undertaken by a representative of the Inspector. This is normally the simplest, quickest and most straightforward way of making an appeal. Most planning appeals proceed by the written procedure.
Hearing - The hearing is a structured discussion led by the Inspector. The Inspector identifies the issues for discussion based on the evidence received and any representations made.
Inquiry - An inquiry is the most formal of the procedures. It provides for the formal testing of evidence, usually through the questioning of expert witnesses and other witnesses. Parties may be formally represented by advocates.
See procedural guide for fuller explanations.
https://planninginspectorate.blog.gov.uk/2026/08/19/is-your-appeal-decision-written-in-the-stars/
seen at 14:38, 19 August in Planning Inspectorate.