*/
There is much to celebrate about the planning appeals process but it can, on occasions, test professional conduct. Tom Cosgrove KC, Claire Searson, Victoria Hutton and Paul Tucker KC explain how the Planning and Environment Bar Association and the Planning Inspectorate are working together to promote good conduct and tackle poor behaviour post-Harman
The Planning and Environment Bar Association (PEBA) is a specialist Bar association (SBA) with members acting in some of the leading public law, environmental and planning cases in the country.
PEBA members have unrivalled experience of planning inquiries in England and Wales where a planning inspector determines appeals from local planning authorities and hears live evidence which is tested by cross-examination. These can last several days or even weeks.
Inquiries can be hard-fought events. The subject matter often includes deciding whether to grant consents for locally controversial developments including large scale housing, commercial or renewable energy proposals and other critical infrastructure needed for the country.
The parties to an inquiry often have vastly different levels of resources to fund their participation. This can lead to power imbalances with sides having differing seniority of counsel and a mismatch in the amount of expert evidence they are able to instruct to support their cases.
In addition, our experience is that some events can become highly emotionally charged in a way that rarely happens during the formality of court proceedings. Despite what many might assume, planning inquiries often have moments of high tension and emotion.
There is much to celebrate about this planning appeals process. It is inhabited by some of the finest practitioners at the Bar displaying great skill in calling and cross-examining expert witnesses. Great skill is also often displayed by the planning inspectors who are appointed for their expertise, but who also have to perform a judicial function when running an inquiry process. This sometimes involves difficult and sensitive issues of management.
PEBA, in part through its regular meetings with the Planning Inspectorate (‘the Inspectorate’), had become aware, often through anecdotal reports, of a very small number of instances of poor and unacceptable conduct from barristers during inquiries allied in some cases to examples where inspectors might have intervened to address conduct with greater speed and thereby diffuse tensions. Anecdotal examples about inappropriate conduct during inquiries suggested that key aspects of the Core Duties of barristers were not always being followed. Such examples included poor handling of interested parties, being disruptive to proceedings in terms of timings such as excessive openings or examination, badgering witnesses in cross-examination, re-examining inappropriately with leading questions and going behind clear concessions, drafting closing submissions with new points or adding in case law which was not discussed with other parties and ignoring clear directions made by inspectors.
It is critical that the Bar assists the inquiry process by at all times adhering to and pursuing cases in accordance with our Core Duties.
PEBA is not a regulator and does not seek to be. But it has sought to respond to such matters when made aware of them in a number of ways within the limitations of its role. Thus, it has provided relevant support and information to members as to how they or others should consider pursuing formal action and/or contact relevant bodies for specialist support.
PEBA has also pursued – when requested to do so – informal ‘behind the scenes’ discussions with those alleged to have been involved (often in conjunction informally with their chambers and the Inspectorate) to make clear the concerns and to highlight firmly what was considered to constitute unacceptable behaviour. This has often addressed the particular incidents and resulted in indications of a genuine change of heart from individuals in the way they would conduct cases in the future. But it was obviously not a method that addressed matters in an open way so that the wider membership could appreciate concerns.
Along with many other SBAs, PEBA made representations to the independent review undertaken by Baroness Harriet Harman KC into bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar. PEBA welcomed the subsequent report and has carefully considered the findings and recommendations. The lack of clarity highlighted in it as to where to go to report misconduct or find support, allied to the critical importance of the need for a change in culture at the Bar generally, were particular matters PEBA was determined to address within the confines of the role it could realistically undertake as an SBA.
Indeed, the Harman Report highlighted the important part SBAs should and could play amid the sometimes-complex hierarchy of regulation and representation at the Bar. PEBA has to that end pursued a number of measures post-Harman.
PEBA has benefitted immensely from the close professional links it has forged with the Inspectorate. We have for several years shared thoughts on good practice at inquiries and developed a number of schemes (including for example ‘marshalling’ schemes for the junior Bar and providing senior members from each organisation to provide and assist in trainings of barristers and inspectors). We keep in regular contact at the leadership level so that both PEBA and the Inspectorate are able to express clear views to each other on how the appeal process is operating in an open way so that any issues of conduct can be flagged if necessary. PEBA has published guidance on aspects of inquiry conduct with the support of the Inspectorate. As organisations, we have reached a position where we can be frank with each other if need be and this is crucial.
One action which PEBA has taken in conjunction with the Inspectorate as an initial step post-Harman was to organise a webinar in December 2025. In this webinar, the authors of this article (three senior members of PEBA and a senior planning inspector) openly discussed areas of potential concern, provided views on what constitutes unacceptable conduct, focused on the roles of advocates and Inspectors in addressing conduct issues and explained what resources exist to assist should such matters arise.
The webinar was entitled: ‘Good Conduct at Planning Inquiries – Thoughts from the Bar and Inspectorate’. It was free and available to all and is still available as a recording on the PEBA website (see tinyurl.com/yrzapm9s). The webinar format was important. It enabled people to attend anonymously if they wished and for an open debate to take place. It involved a structured discussion and a Q&A session led by the authors of this article.
The webinar, so far as we can tell, has been a success. It has been watched by many. Interestingly not only by PEBA barristers (at all levels of seniority) but also by planning inspectors and other experts, clients and consultants who participate in inquiries.
The feedback has been very encouraging. Practitioners, clients and inspectors alike have welcomed open discussions about such important matters. We hope we made it clear that practitioners from all walks of life and backgrounds and at all levels of call have a future in a profession that will no longer quietly tolerate poor conduct.
During the webinar we all spoke openly about key issues of concern in the specific context of planning inquiries and with the Harman recommendations in mind. Our views were forthright on what was and was not acceptable and we provided information for people to contact relevant organisations and sources of information online.
The partnership and cooperation between PEBA and the Planning Inspectorate were key to making the webinar a success. It is only one part of PEBA’s response to the Harman Report and it will be critical for the conversation to continue, for unacceptable conduct to be called out and for good practice to be encouraged.
And a sense of proportion must, of course, remain. In most cases, PEBA practitioners and the Inspectorate display great skill and understanding and have openly challenged and stopped unacceptable behaviour.
Going forward, SBAs and others must, in our view, continue to openly discuss and promote what is and is not good conduct and flush out uncomfortable truths where they exist. Leaders in the profession especially should promote good practices and call out what is not acceptable. In doing so, organisations like PEBA and the Inspectorate can, we hope, continue to strive to make the work we are fortunate enough to be able to be a part of open and welcoming to a diverse range of practitioners. This can only benefit us all.
Watch the webinar
‘Good Conduct at Planning Inquiries – Thoughts from the Bar and Inspectorate’, a webinar held on 8 December 2025, can be viewed on the PEBA website.
Victoria Hutton specialises in planning and environmental law at 39 Essex Chambers. She was shortlisted as planning and environment junior barrister of the year by Chambers and Partners (2021 and 2025) and Legal 500 (2025) and was included in the Planner’s Women of Influence list for 2020. Victoria is PEBA Equality and Diversity Officer and co-author of Planning Policy (Bloomsbury 2018 with Richard Harwood QC).
The Planning and Environment Bar Association (PEBA) is a specialist Bar association (SBA) with members acting in some of the leading public law, environmental and planning cases in the country.
PEBA members have unrivalled experience of planning inquiries in England and Wales where a planning inspector determines appeals from local planning authorities and hears live evidence which is tested by cross-examination. These can last several days or even weeks.
Inquiries can be hard-fought events. The subject matter often includes deciding whether to grant consents for locally controversial developments including large scale housing, commercial or renewable energy proposals and other critical infrastructure needed for the country.
The parties to an inquiry often have vastly different levels of resources to fund their participation. This can lead to power imbalances with sides having differing seniority of counsel and a mismatch in the amount of expert evidence they are able to instruct to support their cases.
In addition, our experience is that some events can become highly emotionally charged in a way that rarely happens during the formality of court proceedings. Despite what many might assume, planning inquiries often have moments of high tension and emotion.
There is much to celebrate about this planning appeals process. It is inhabited by some of the finest practitioners at the Bar displaying great skill in calling and cross-examining expert witnesses. Great skill is also often displayed by the planning inspectors who are appointed for their expertise, but who also have to perform a judicial function when running an inquiry process. This sometimes involves difficult and sensitive issues of management.
PEBA, in part through its regular meetings with the Planning Inspectorate (‘the Inspectorate’), had become aware, often through anecdotal reports, of a very small number of instances of poor and unacceptable conduct from barristers during inquiries allied in some cases to examples where inspectors might have intervened to address conduct with greater speed and thereby diffuse tensions. Anecdotal examples about inappropriate conduct during inquiries suggested that key aspects of the Core Duties of barristers were not always being followed. Such examples included poor handling of interested parties, being disruptive to proceedings in terms of timings such as excessive openings or examination, badgering witnesses in cross-examination, re-examining inappropriately with leading questions and going behind clear concessions, drafting closing submissions with new points or adding in case law which was not discussed with other parties and ignoring clear directions made by inspectors.
It is critical that the Bar assists the inquiry process by at all times adhering to and pursuing cases in accordance with our Core Duties.
PEBA is not a regulator and does not seek to be. But it has sought to respond to such matters when made aware of them in a number of ways within the limitations of its role. Thus, it has provided relevant support and information to members as to how they or others should consider pursuing formal action and/or contact relevant bodies for specialist support.
PEBA has also pursued – when requested to do so – informal ‘behind the scenes’ discussions with those alleged to have been involved (often in conjunction informally with their chambers and the Inspectorate) to make clear the concerns and to highlight firmly what was considered to constitute unacceptable behaviour. This has often addressed the particular incidents and resulted in indications of a genuine change of heart from individuals in the way they would conduct cases in the future. But it was obviously not a method that addressed matters in an open way so that the wider membership could appreciate concerns.
Along with many other SBAs, PEBA made representations to the independent review undertaken by Baroness Harriet Harman KC into bullying, harassment and sexual harassment at the Bar. PEBA welcomed the subsequent report and has carefully considered the findings and recommendations. The lack of clarity highlighted in it as to where to go to report misconduct or find support, allied to the critical importance of the need for a change in culture at the Bar generally, were particular matters PEBA was determined to address within the confines of the role it could realistically undertake as an SBA.
Indeed, the Harman Report highlighted the important part SBAs should and could play amid the sometimes-complex hierarchy of regulation and representation at the Bar. PEBA has to that end pursued a number of measures post-Harman.
PEBA has benefitted immensely from the close professional links it has forged with the Inspectorate. We have for several years shared thoughts on good practice at inquiries and developed a number of schemes (including for example ‘marshalling’ schemes for the junior Bar and providing senior members from each organisation to provide and assist in trainings of barristers and inspectors). We keep in regular contact at the leadership level so that both PEBA and the Inspectorate are able to express clear views to each other on how the appeal process is operating in an open way so that any issues of conduct can be flagged if necessary. PEBA has published guidance on aspects of inquiry conduct with the support of the Inspectorate. As organisations, we have reached a position where we can be frank with each other if need be and this is crucial.
One action which PEBA has taken in conjunction with the Inspectorate as an initial step post-Harman was to organise a webinar in December 2025. In this webinar, the authors of this article (three senior members of PEBA and a senior planning inspector) openly discussed areas of potential concern, provided views on what constitutes unacceptable conduct, focused on the roles of advocates and Inspectors in addressing conduct issues and explained what resources exist to assist should such matters arise.
The webinar was entitled: ‘Good Conduct at Planning Inquiries – Thoughts from the Bar and Inspectorate’. It was free and available to all and is still available as a recording on the PEBA website (see tinyurl.com/yrzapm9s). The webinar format was important. It enabled people to attend anonymously if they wished and for an open debate to take place. It involved a structured discussion and a Q&A session led by the authors of this article.
The webinar, so far as we can tell, has been a success. It has been watched by many. Interestingly not only by PEBA barristers (at all levels of seniority) but also by planning inspectors and other experts, clients and consultants who participate in inquiries.
The feedback has been very encouraging. Practitioners, clients and inspectors alike have welcomed open discussions about such important matters. We hope we made it clear that practitioners from all walks of life and backgrounds and at all levels of call have a future in a profession that will no longer quietly tolerate poor conduct.
During the webinar we all spoke openly about key issues of concern in the specific context of planning inquiries and with the Harman recommendations in mind. Our views were forthright on what was and was not acceptable and we provided information for people to contact relevant organisations and sources of information online.
The partnership and cooperation between PEBA and the Planning Inspectorate were key to making the webinar a success. It is only one part of PEBA’s response to the Harman Report and it will be critical for the conversation to continue, for unacceptable conduct to be called out and for good practice to be encouraged.
And a sense of proportion must, of course, remain. In most cases, PEBA practitioners and the Inspectorate display great skill and understanding and have openly challenged and stopped unacceptable behaviour.
Going forward, SBAs and others must, in our view, continue to openly discuss and promote what is and is not good conduct and flush out uncomfortable truths where they exist. Leaders in the profession especially should promote good practices and call out what is not acceptable. In doing so, organisations like PEBA and the Inspectorate can, we hope, continue to strive to make the work we are fortunate enough to be able to be a part of open and welcoming to a diverse range of practitioners. This can only benefit us all.
Watch the webinar
‘Good Conduct at Planning Inquiries – Thoughts from the Bar and Inspectorate’, a webinar held on 8 December 2025, can be viewed on the PEBA website.
There is much to celebrate about the planning appeals process but it can, on occasions, test professional conduct. Tom Cosgrove KC, Claire Searson, Victoria Hutton and Paul Tucker KC explain how the Planning and Environment Bar Association and the Planning Inspectorate are working together to promote good conduct and tackle poor behaviour post-Harman
Update from the Chair of the Bar
By Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group
Modernising communication and collaboration at a leading Chancery set. A Zexi case study
How to build profile without compromising professional duties. By Naumaan Farooq, Co-Founder of Inked PR
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the role of cut-off levels, and the wider range of factors that must be considered when interpreting results for family court proceedings
Endometriosis Awareness North, a charity raising awareness of endometriosis and supporting those affected across the North of England, has received a £500 boost from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
The case against judge-only justice – and why efficiency is not enough. By Professor Leslie Thomas KC
Jemima Coleman and Zoë Leventhal KC on the evolving global movement seeking to reframe how we view nature: to recognise that nature possesses inherent rights and to enshrine these rights in law
Heritage as an anchor and a compass, finding our common humanity and embracing the power of the outsider – Melina Antoniadis’s lessons learnt
Seeing the full picture – Baljit Ubhey OBE outlines the CPS action plan to tackle violence against women and girls, offering insights directly relevant to courtroom practice
Lauren Fullerton examines the how, what and why of setting up a second chambers base
