The three appeal procedures
If you appeal a refusal of planning permission, there are three possible procedures: written representations, a hearing and an inquiry. You can say on the appeal form which procedure you think is appropriate, but the decision is not yours; it is the appeal inspector who decides. Except for more complicated cases, the inspector will usually choose written representations – it is quicker and easier process for everyone involved. Appeal Finder’s figures for January to March 2026 say that written representation appeals made up 94 per cent of section 78 appeals in that period.
A hearing is more substantial than a written appeal, but much less formal than an inquiry. It is not a court. In practice, it takes the form of a round-table discussion led by the inspector, with the parties sitting down and talking through the issues in a fairly straightforward way. Hearings are usually held in the local council offices.
Traditionally, that procedure has been reserved for cases that are a bit more complicated, more contentious, or simply less well suited to being decided on paper, but which do not justify the cost and formality of a full public inquiry. Hearings are therefore more involved, and usually more expensive for the appellant, than an ordinary written appeal, but they also give much more room for the case to be explained properly.
What has changed
Until recently, most everyone went for written representations – hearings were mostly for larger schemes. However, the government has recently changed the planning appeal system so that, for planning applications submitted on or after 1 April 2026, most appeals will follow a simplified, fast-track procedures, where there is no statement of case, and the appellant is not allowed to submit evidence at appeal that was not previously before the council when it made its decision. The inspector is therefore left largely with the original application documents, the refusal notice, the officer report or committee minutes, the appeal form and the council’s questionnaire.
That may work ok where the original planning application was very detailed and contained all the information necessary to respond to the council’s reasons for refusal. As I have written before, it is now very important to submit a strong planning statement with your application, so that it is ‘appeal ready’.
The problem is that many applications are not strong enough to stand up at appeal. Sometimes, there is no planning statement making the case for the proposal, or the council’s refusal brings up issues that were not covered. For example, a neighbour raises highways concerns, the council seizes on them, and suddenly what is really needed is a highways consultant’s input.
Hearings have become more attractive…
Under the old written appeal process, that sort of point could often be dealt with. Under the new Part 1 route, it generally cannot. One answer is to go away, amend the scheme and submit a fresh application with the right supporting material in place. But planning fees have risen sharply, the old ‘free go’ has gone, and in some cases the applicant will suspect that the council is simply not going to accept the development in any sensible form. In that situation, an appeal with a hearing starts to look like the best option.
If the inspectorate grants you a hearing, you are given two weeks to prepared a full statement of case (an appeal statement), allowing you to make your case. You can submit additional evidence from a highways consultant, for example, or some revised or additional plans.
That does not mean every refusal should suddenly be taken to a hearing. Some cases will still be perfectly suitable for written representations, even under the new rules. If the application was well put together, the issues are narrow, and the refusal reasons do not really go beyond the arguments already anticipated in the submission, there may be little to be gained by asking for anything more elaborate. A hearing is also more burdensome – it takes more preparation and it is usually much more expensive. It involves attending in person, instructing consultants properly and making sure everyone is ready to defend the scheme in a way that simply does not arise on paper.
… and they have a higher success rate
However, hearings do appear to have a higher success rate than written representations. Appeal Finder’s recent analysis says that written representation appeals had a success rate of 30%, compared with 62% for hearings and 61% for inquiries.
This is, of course, partly because gearings are more likely to attract stronger cases, better prepared appellants and, in many cases, more serious professional input. But the higher success rate is also because appellants put much more effort into their submissions and simply mount stronger appeals.
In practical terms, a hearing is best suited where there is a benefit to discussing the reasons for refusal in detail in front of the inspector. This suits cases where there are complex technical issues (you could, for example, bring a highways consultant along to a hearing to thrash out issues or parking or highways safety), or where there is dispute about the quality of the architectural design, in which case you can bring sets of scaled drawings that all participants at the hearing could pore over.
Either way, it is important to make a positive decision on whether or not you want a hearing, or whether you are happy for your appeal to proceed under the new system. In some cases, a resubmission is preferable to an appeal.
If your application has been refused and you are considering an appeal, Just Planning’s chartered town planners can advise on the best route forward and represent you through the appeal itself. That includes advising whether a hearing should be sought, preparing the statement of case where the procedure allows it, dealing with the appeal paperwork, and representing you at the hearing itself.
If you are not sure whether your case is suitable for a hearing, or whether a revised application would be the better option, we can review the refusal and advise on the most sensible next step.
