Statement of common ground: what to agree before an appeal
A statement of common ground fixes the uncontested facts before an appeal so the inquiry can deal with the real dispute. Here is what belongs in it, what does not, and when to draft it.
A statement of common ground is a jointly signed document in which the appellant and the local planning authority record what they agree, so that the inspector and the event itself can concentrate on what they do not. It is not evidence, it is not argument, and it does not decide anything. What it does is fix the uncontested ground: the site description, the planning history, the policies in play, the technical outputs both sides accept. Get it right and a three-day inquiry becomes a two-day inquiry. Get it wrong and the first morning is spent arguing about the floor area.
The Planning Inspectorate expects one for inquiries and encourages one for hearings. On written representations it is unusual, though inspectors do ask where a case turns on technical figures that ought not to be in dispute.
What the statement of common ground does
Three jobs, in order of practical value.
It removes uncontested matters from the timetable. If both parties sign up to the trip generation figures, no transport witness needs to be called, and the transport section of the Transport Assessment is read rather than debated.
It exposes the real dispute early. Drafting forces the authority to say which of its reasons for refusal it actually intends to defend. Reasons quietly drop away at this stage more often than people expect, particularly where a reason was added at committee against officer advice.
And it gives the inspector a reliable factual base. An inspector writing a decision letter needs agreed figures to work from. Where the parties disagree about the height of the host building, the decision has to resolve that first, and the reasoning gets longer and less predictable.
Who drafts it and when it is due
The appellant drafts. That is convention rather than rule, and it favours the appellant, because whoever holds the pen frames the description of the site and the summary of the history.
Send a first draft to the case officer within days of the appeal being submitted, before the authority's team has hardened its position. Ask for tracked changes rather than comments. Expect two or three rounds.
The Inspectorate sets the due date in the appeal timetable it issues after the appeal is validated. Read that timetable the day it arrives and diary every date on it. The statement usually falls close to the exchange of proofs of evidence, which is late in the process, so a party that leaves drafting until the deadline ends up agreeing less than it could have.
Both parties sign. A third party with a formal role, such as a highway authority or a Rule 6 party, may sign a separate statement covering its own matters.
Facts, policy and technical matters usually agreed
A workable structure for a residential appeal:
- The appeal site, its area in hectares, existing use and surroundings.
- The proposal, described exactly as in the application, with the plan numbers being determined.
- Relevant planning history, with reference numbers and decision dates.
- The development plan, its adoption date, and the policies each party considers relevant.
- Material considerations agreed to apply, including any emerging plan and the weight the parties give it.
- Technical matters agreed: levels, distances to boundaries, floor areas, parking numbers, survey outputs.
- Matters not agreed, listed as short numbered issues.
- Conditions agreed in the event permission is granted, with a note of any still in dispute.
Section 8 is the one people skip. Agreeing a condition schedule in advance is worth doing even when you expect to win outright, because an inspector minded to allow an appeal will otherwise impose conditions drafted without your input. The same applies to a Heritage Statement where the level of harm is contested: agree the significance of the asset even if you cannot agree the harm, because significance is a question of fact and harm is a question of judgement.
Do not agree matters of planning judgement. The balance, the weight to be given to a policy conflict, whether harm is less than substantial, whether a benefit is significant: these belong in evidence, and an authority that gets them into the statement of common ground has won something for nothing.
How it narrows the issues at an inquiry
The inspector uses the statement to set the main issues at the case management conference. Those main issues then shape the running order, the witnesses, and the length of the event.
An inquiry timetable is expensive. Counsel, witnesses, a venue and the officer time all scale with the number of days. Every technical matter moved into the agreed column takes cross-examination off the programme. On one straightforward matter the difference is an hour. Across four or five it is a day.
There is a second effect that is easy to miss. Agreed facts constrain what a witness can say under cross-examination. If the statement records the separation distance as 21 m, neither side can invite the inspector to work from a different figure, and the argument moves to whether 21 m is acceptable. That is usually the argument you want.
Its relationship to statements of case and proofs
These three documents are frequently confused, and the confusion causes late-stage panic.
| Document | Who writes it | What it contains |
|---|---|---|
| Statement of case | Each party separately | The full particulars of that party's case, including the matters it intends to raise |
| Statement of common ground | Both parties jointly | Agreed facts, policy and technical outputs, and a list of matters in dispute |
| Proof of evidence | Each witness | That witness's evidence on the main issues, signed by them |
The statement of case comes first and defines the outer limit of what a party may argue. The statement of common ground then subtracts the agreed material. Proofs of evidence deal with what remains. A proof that re-states agreed facts across six pages wastes the inspector's time and invites a comment in the decision letter.
Long proofs need a summary document, and the Procedural Guide sets out the length at which that applies. Check the current edition, because the Inspectorate revises it.
Mistakes that cost time at the event
Agreeing a description of development that differs from the application form. The inspector determines the proposal as applied for, and an inconsistent description creates a jurisdictional wobble that eats the first session.
Listing policies without the parties' positions on them. "Policy DM12 is relevant" tells the inspector nothing. "Both parties agree Policy DM12 applies; the authority considers the scheme conflicts with criterion (c), the appellant does not" is useful.
Leaving the technical appendices out. Attach the agreed drawings, the levels survey and the relevant plan extracts. An inspector reading on the train should not need to hunt for them.
Signing something you have not checked against your own Planning Statement. Where the appeal follows a refusal, the planning statement submitted with the application is on the file, and a contradiction between the two documents will be found.
Allowing the statement to record the authority's committee resolution as though it were a considered position. Officers sometimes recommended approval. If so, the officer report is a document you want quoted at length in the agreed section.
Illustrative example: a rear extension appeal where the parties agreed the boundary distance, the neighbour's window positions and the orientation, but not the effect on light. That statement was four pages. The inquiry ran half a day, because the only live question was judgement on a set of agreed geometry. This example is illustrative.
A statement of common ground rewards early, unglamorous work. Draft it while the refusal is fresh, keep the judgement out of it, and treat every fact you agree as one fewer thing to prove.
PlanScope drafts the supporting statements that sit behind an appeal, structured to UK planning policy and flagging missing site facts rather than inventing them. Browse the full list of report types to see what a planning appeal pack usually contains, or enter a postcode on the home page to start.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified 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.
Frequently asked questions
Is a statement of common ground compulsory?
It is expected for inquiries and encouraged for hearings, with the due date set in the timetable the Planning Inspectorate issues after an appeal is validated. On written representations it is unusual, although an inspector may ask for one where the case turns on technical figures that ought not to be contested. Check the current Procedural Guide for the position on your appeal route.
Who writes the first draft?
The appellant, by convention. Drafting first is an advantage because it frames the site description and the planning history. Send a draft to the case officer soon after the appeal is submitted rather than waiting for the deadline, ask for tracked changes, and expect two or three rounds before both parties sign.
What should never go into a statement of common ground?
Matters of planning judgement. The weight given to a policy conflict, whether harm to a heritage asset is less than substantial, whether a benefit is important: these are for evidence and submissions. Agreeing them hands the other side a point without argument. Agree facts, figures, policy applicability and the list of disputed issues instead.
How does it differ from a statement of case?
A statement of case is written by each party separately and sets out the full particulars of that party's argument. A statement of common ground is joint and records only what both sides accept, plus a list of the matters still in dispute. Proofs of evidence come later and deal with the disputed matters through named witnesses.
Should conditions be agreed in it?
Yes. Include a draft condition schedule with any wording still in dispute flagged. If the inspector allows the appeal without an agreed schedule, conditions are imposed without your input, and you may end up with pre-start requirements that are harder to discharge than the versions you would have negotiated.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.