Statements of common ground and what to concede

A statement of common ground is the document that stops an inquiry wasting three days establishing facts nobody disputes. For a consultant preparing one, the drafting question is narrower than it first appears: what should be conceded, what should be recorded as agreed without being conceded, and what belongs in a proof of evidence instead. Getting a statement of common ground appeal document right shortens the hearing and makes your own case easier to follow.

The discipline is to agree facts and to keep judgements out. A statement that drifts into the planning balance gives the other side a document with your name on it that can be read back to your witness.

What the statement is for

It is a jointly signed document, prepared by the appellant and the local planning authority, recording the matters on which they agree. The Planning Inspectorate expects one for inquiries, and inspectors often ask for one in hearings and in more substantial written representations appeals.

The purpose is procedural. An inspector reading an agreed set of facts can concentrate the inquiry on the matters still in dispute, which shortens the event, reduces costs for both sides and reduces the risk of the decision turning on a factual misunderstanding.

It also has a secondary function that experienced practitioners use deliberately. Drafting the statement forces both sides to articulate their positions early, and it is common for one or two refusal reasons to fall away during the drafting because the authority discovers its factual premise was wrong.

Facts that should always be agreed

Start with the uncontroversial material, because it is most of the document.

• the site address, area, ownership and planning history, with application and appeal references
• the description of development as applied for, and the drawing numbers and revisions of the appeal scheme
• the development plan documents in force, with adoption dates, and the policies each party relies on
• any neighbourhood plan covering the site and its date
• the designations affecting the site: conservation area, listed buildings and their grades, flood zone, Green Belt, tree preservation orders
• the procedural history: validation date, consultation responses, committee date and resolution, decision notice date
• agreed technical figures: floorspace, unit numbers and mix, parking numbers, site coverage, trip rates where agreed, biodiversity baseline where agreed
• whether the authority can demonstrate a five year housing land supply, or the agreed figure and the basis for it

Housing land supply deserves a note. Where the figure itself is disputed, the statement can still record the common ground: the method, the base date, the agreed components, and precisely where the parties diverge. That is more useful to an inspector than silence, and it narrows the dispute to a single component rather than the whole calculation.

What to keep out

Four categories should not be in the statement.

Policy interpretation. Whether a policy is consistent with national policy, or whether the development accords with it, is a matter for the inspector. Agreeing that a policy "requires" something as a shorthand is risky, because the authority's reading of the requirement may be the thing in dispute.

The planning balance. Nothing about weight, harm, benefits or whether the proposal is acceptable.

Expert opinion dressed as fact. "The scheme would cause less than substantial harm" is an opinion. "The site lies within the conservation area and 35 m from a Grade II listed building" is a fact.

Anything your witness has not seen. A consultant agreeing noise figures without the acoustician's confirmation creates a problem that surfaces under cross-examination.

The useful test before signing a line: if the other side read this sentence aloud to my witness, would the witness be comfortable? If not, it belongs somewhere else.

Conceding properly

Concession is a skill, not a weakness, and the statement is where it is done cleanly.

Concede facts that are true and verifiable even where they are unhelpful. If the scheme is in the Green Belt, say so. If a tree will be removed, record it with its reference and category from the Tree Survey. An expert who fights the undeniable loses credibility on the matters that are arguable, and inspectors notice.

Concede the arithmetic while reserving its meaning. A sentence of the form "the parties agree that the proposal would result in the loss of 0.4 ha of grade 3a agricultural land. The parties do not agree on the weight to be attached to that loss" is good drafting. It gives the inspector the fact and preserves the argument.

Do not concede by implication. Silence on a point can be read as acceptance, so where a matter is disputed and relevant, record the disagreement expressly rather than omitting it.

And do not concede conditions prematurely. A schedule of agreed conditions is usually a separate document, and agreeing a condition in the statement of common ground can be read as accepting that the harm it addresses exists.

Topic-specific statements

On larger inquiries the main statement is supplemented by topic statements, prepared between the respective experts rather than by the advocates. Common ones cover highways and transport, noise, drainage and flood risk, daylight and sunlight, ecology and heritage.

These are where the real efficiency lies. Two transport consultants can usually agree trip rates, the junction modelling inputs, the survey dates and the accident record in an afternoon, leaving the dispute to be about capacity conclusions. Two acousticians can agree the measured background levels while disagreeing about the assessment method.

A workable approach is for each expert to produce a short table with three columns: the matter, the agreed position, and the point of difference. Where the difference is a single input assumption, say which one, because an inspector can then test it directly.

Where heritage is in play, the agreed baseline usually includes the designation, the grade, the distance and the elements contributing to significance, with the degree of harm left to the proofs. A draft Heritage Statement prepared for the application is the obvious source for the factual material, though the harm judgement in it remains the author's opinion rather than common ground.

Timing in the appeal programme

The Inspectorate sets dates, and the statement is usually required with or shortly before the statements of case or proofs, depending on the procedure and the directions given.

In practice the timetable works backwards. Start drafting as soon as the appeal is lodged, not when the deadline appears. Send a first draft to the authority containing all the factual material you can assemble, with the disputed matters marked. Authorities are stretched, and a case officer handed a near-complete draft will usually engage with it faster than one asked to prepare one.

Expect two or three rounds. Keep a version-controlled file and date every draft, because the exchange itself becomes evidence of reasonable conduct if costs are raised later.

If agreement cannot be reached, submit your version with the areas of disagreement clearly identified and say what was proposed and not accepted. An inspector would rather have an unsigned statement with the positions set out than nothing.

Using the statement to narrow the inquiry

The strategic use is to shrink the list of main issues. Where the authority has refused on five grounds and the factual premise of two of them is agreed away, the inquiry has three issues rather than five, and the programme shortens accordingly.

Three moves help. Draft the statement so that each refusal reason has a paragraph recording the agreed facts underlying it. Where a refusal reason is no longer pursued, record that expressly, because an authority sometimes concedes a ground without formally withdrawing it, and the position on the six tests a planning condition has to meet often decides whether that happens. And identify in the statement the matters on which the parties agree conditions could overcome the objection, since that narrows the dispute to whether the condition is acceptable rather than whether the harm exists.

One caution: a statement of common ground binds the parties who signed it, not third parties. Interested persons can and do raise matters the main parties agreed were not in issue, and the inspector will consider them. Agreeing something away does not remove it from the inquiry if a local resident puts it back.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with a qualified professional before relying on it. If you are assembling the technical evidence behind an appeal, the 66 report types by category index shows where each document sits. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.