What an inspector notices in a poorly drafted statement

Read twenty written representations decisions in a row and the appeal statement common faults stop looking like style problems. They are structural. The statements that fail share the same defect: they assert a conclusion the inspector is being asked to reach, without putting the inspector in a position to reach it.

An inspector determining a section 78 appeal has to decide the case on its planning merits, applying section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and has to give reasons. Every sentence in your statement either helps that reasoning or gets in its way.

Assertion doing the work that evidence should

"The proposal would not harm the character of the area" is a conclusion. It is the conclusion the inspector has to reach, and writing it down does not advance it.

What advances it is the material that makes the conclusion available. The prevailing plot widths on the street, measured. The ridge heights of the neighbouring pairs. The fact that three properties in the same terrace already have two-storey rear additions of similar depth, with their application references. Photographs taken from the viewpoints the officer used.

The pattern to watch for in your own drafting is the adjective doing structural work. Modest, subordinate, appropriate, sympathetic, in keeping. Each of those needs a measurement or a comparison behind it in the same paragraph, or it is decoration.

This is where AI-assisted drafting helps least and is most often misused. A draft can produce a well-organised paragraph asserting that a scheme respects local character. It cannot know the plot widths. Unverified facts should be flagged rather than smoothed over, and the flags are the work list, which is the same discipline described for factual errors to look for in a drafted planning document.

Policy quoted and never applied

The commonest padding in appeal statements is a block quotation of a development plan policy followed by a sentence saying the proposal accords with it.

Policies contain tests. A design policy might require development to respect the scale, form and materials of its surroundings, respond to the topography, and retain boundary planting. That is three tests and a fourth. An inspector reading a statement that quotes the policy and asserts compliance has to work out for themselves which limb is in dispute.

Do the work instead. Set out the limb, state the fact, state the consequence. Where a limb is not met, say so and explain why it does not tip the balance, because the inspector will find it anyway and a concession made voluntarily costs less than one extracted.

Cite the Framework by its current edition. The Framework published on 17 August 2026 is organised by policy codes rather than the paragraph numbers used in earlier editions, so a statement citing paragraph numbers from a 2023 or 2024 copy tells the inspector something unhelpful about how recently the drafting was checked. Verify the current reference on gov.uk before you file.

Drifting away from the reasons for refusal

The reasons for refusal are the agenda. An inspector will address them, and anything else you raise competes for attention with the things that actually decide the appeal.

Structure the statement around them. One main heading per reason, in the council's order, using the council's own words as the heading. If there are three reasons and your statement has seven sections, two of which deal with the history of your dealings with the case officer, the balance is wrong.

Where a reason for refusal has been overtaken, say so early and shortly. If the council's ecology objection has been resolved by a survey carried out since refusal, put that in the second paragraph rather than on page 14.

And resist rebutting third party representations at length unless the inspector will have to deal with them. Objections that raise non-material matters need one sentence, not three pages.

Comparisons with other sites that go nowhere

Every planning consultant has been handed a photograph of something down the road and told to use it.

Comparisons can work. They need three things: evidence that the comparator was permitted rather than merely built, the application reference and decision date, and an explanation of why the circumstances are materially similar. Without all three, an inspector will note that each case is determined on its own merits and move on.

Appeal decisions are worth citing where they deal with the same issue, and they should be described as indicative of how inspectors have approached a question rather than as binding precedent. Quote the relevant passage, give the reference, and explain the similarity in facts. A list of appeal references with no analysis attached is worse than nothing, because it invites the inspector to read them and find the distinctions.

Length that buries the argument

Long statements are not more thorough. They are usually less edited.

The problem is not the page count as such. It is that the decisive point ends up on page 22 with the same weight as a paragraph about the site's bus connectivity. If you cannot say in two sentences at the top what the appeal turns on, the statement is not ready.

A practical test. Write the paragraph you would want the inspector to write in the decision letter. If your statement does not give them everything needed to write it, add that. If it contains material that has nothing to do with it, cut that. The internal review checklist for submissions is the place to make that a habit rather than an intention.

Appendices nobody is asked to open

An appendix that is never referenced in the text will not be read, and should not be there.

Every appendix needs a call-out at the point where it matters, with a page or figure reference. "The tree constraints plan at Appendix C shows the root protection areas, and the proposed footprint at Figure 2 sits outside all of them" does something. "See Appendix C" does less. A bare list of appendices does nothing at all.

The same applies to technical reports prepared by others. Summarise the finding in the statement, in your own words, with a reference to the paragraph in the report. Inspectors notice when a statement quietly hopes a 90 page acoustic report will be taken as read.

Writing for the decision rather than the client

The hardest habit to break is writing to reassure the client that their money is being spent.

Signs of it: adjectival praise for the scheme, criticism of the council's conduct, references to the applicant's personal circumstances where they are not a material consideration, and a tone of grievance. None of it helps, and the costs regime cuts both ways. Unreasonable behaviour can attract an award against either party, so a statement that spends its energy attacking the authority rather than the reasons for refusal carries a risk of its own.

The register that works is flat and factual. State the issue, state the evidence, state the conclusion, move on. The same discipline that makes a design and access statement an officer can use makes an appeal statement an inspector can use, and both are written for a reader with a decision to justify.

One honest uncertainty. Inspectors vary in how much weight they give to written material against what they see on site, and a site visit sometimes resolves a point that pages of argument did not. Write the statement so that it directs attention to the right places on site, with viewpoints marked on a plan, and it will work whichever way that falls.

Authorship matters too, and the question of who wrote your report reaches appeals as well as applications.

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