A statement of common ground that narrows the issues

A statement of common ground appeal document exists to reduce what the inspector has to decide. It records what the appellant and the authority agree about the site, the history, the policy framework and the figures, and it identifies precisely what remains in dispute. Done properly it removes a day from an inquiry and sharpens the evidence on both sides. Done carelessly it hands the authority an agreed fact you needed to contest.

It is a joint document. That is the part practitioners find hardest, because the drafting is adversarial in instinct and collaborative in form.

What the document is for and who drafts it

The Planning Inspectorate expects a statement of common ground on appeals proceeding by hearing or inquiry, and increasingly encourages one on larger written representations appeals. The appeal start letter sets the deadline, and it is earlier than most people expect.

In practice the appellant's agent produces the first draft, because the appellant is the party with the incentive to move quickly. The authority then marks it up. Two or three exchanges usually settle it, with a final version signed by both parties.

Write the first draft to be signed, not to be negotiated. A draft stuffed with favourable characterisations comes back covered in tracked changes and burns two weeks. A draft that is scrupulously neutral on the contested points, and generous on the uncontested ones, gets signed.

Where the issues are technical, produce topic-specific statements as well: highways, ecology, heritage, drainage, viability. Each one is agreed between the relevant witnesses rather than between the agents, and that is what makes them useful.

Structure: agreed facts, agreed policy, matters in dispute

A workable structure runs in this order.

1. The parties, the appeal reference and the procedure.
2. The appeal site and its surroundings, described factually.
3. The proposal, as described in the application and as amended.
4. Relevant planning history, with references and dates.
5. The development plan, listing the policies both parties consider relevant, and their status.
6. Other material considerations both parties accept as relevant, including national policy and any supplementary guidance.
7. Agreed facts and figures.
8. Matters agreed between the parties, expressed as propositions.
9. Matters in dispute, expressed as questions for the inspector.
10. Draft conditions and, where relevant, the status of any obligation.
11. Core documents list.

Separating items 8 and 9 is what gives the document its value. A statement that lists agreed facts but never says what is actually in dispute leaves the inspector to work it out from two statements of case.

Site description and planning history

These sections look like housekeeping and are not.

The site description will be quoted in the decision. Agree the measurements, the levels, the boundary treatments, the distances to neighbouring windows, the character of the surrounding area in factual terms. Resist adjectives that carry a planning judgement. "The site is an open paddock" is a fact. "The site is an attractive open paddock forming a valued gap" is the authority's case.

Planning history should list every relevant application with reference, description, date and outcome, including refused and withdrawn schemes, and any enforcement history. Where an earlier permission is capable of implementation, say so and agree the fallback position, because a live fallback is frequently the strongest point the appellant has.

Appeal decisions relied on by either party belong in the core documents list rather than in the narrative. They are indicative of how inspectors have approached an issue, not binding precedent, and characterising them in an agreed document invites an argument you do not need.

Agreeing figures before arguing about them

The single greatest saving comes from agreeing arithmetic.

Housing land supply calculations, trip generation, floor areas, unit mix, distances, daylight results, viability inputs, biodiversity units. In each case the parties usually disagree about a judgement applied to a number, not about the number itself. Agreeing the number, and isolating the judgement, converts a half day of evidence into a paragraph.

Where the figures really do differ, agree the method and the source instead, then present both results in a table with the point of divergence identified. An inspector who can see exactly where two experts part company can decide the point. One who receives two incompatible sets of numbers with no common basis usually prefers neither.

The discipline is the same as setting out an appraisal transparently, which is why a viability appraisal inputs schedule is a useful model for how to present contested figures.

What should never be conceded by accident

Four things get given away in drafting.

Policy interpretation. Agreeing that a policy "requires" something, when your case is that it does not, loses the point before the inquiry opens. Agree which policies are relevant. Do not agree what they mean unless you mean to.

Weight. Agreed statements about the weight to be given to a consideration are a matter for the inspector, and agreeing them is both wrong in principle and damaging in practice.

The planning balance. Nothing in a statement of common ground should express a conclusion on whether permission should be granted.

Harm. Agreeing that a proposal causes harm, even qualified as limited, concedes the first half of the heritage or Green Belt test. If the case is that there is no harm, say the level of harm is in dispute.

One more, easy to miss: do not agree a description of development that differs from the one applied for, unless a formal amendment has been made. The inspector determines the appeal on the application as made.

Timing within the appeal timetable

For an inquiry, the statement of common ground is normally required around the same time as statements of case, and the Inspectorate has pushed these deadlines earlier to shorten inquiry time. For a hearing it is usually required with the statements.

Work backwards from that date and start the week the appeal is lodged. Councils have limited capacity, the case officer may have left, and the person who has to sign the document may be a team leader with no history of the application. Sending a complete, neutral draft at the outset gives them something to react to rather than something to create.

Where the authority will not engage, the appellant should submit a unilateral statement of common ground setting out what it says is agreed and what it believes is in dispute, and say plainly that the authority did not respond. That protects the position and, if the failure causes wasted expense, it may be relevant to an application for costs. The way those applications are assessed is covered in appeal costs awards, assessed and paid.

An illustrative structure for the disputed issues section

Set out each disputed matter as a question, followed by one short paragraph from each party. Illustrative only:

Then, beneath the table, state which sub-issues within each are agreed. On housing land supply, for instance, the parties may agree the requirement and the buffer and differ only on the deliverability of three sites, which narrows the evidence enormously.

Keep the core documents list in the same document and number it, because everyone will refer to it for the rest of the appeal. And keep the Planning Statement from the original application in that list, since the inspector will want to see what was before the council. Where you need to assemble the wider evidence base again for the appeal, the report index is a quick way to check what was submitted and what was not.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Appeal procedures and deadlines are set by the Inspectorate for each case, so follow the start letter and check the current procedural guide 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.