Statements of common ground at hearings and inquiries

A statement of common ground planning document does one job: it tells the inspector what the parties agree, so that the hearing or inquiry can spend its time on what they do not. Prepared properly it removes half the evidence from the room. Prepared as an afterthought, three days before the deadline, it becomes a list of things nobody has had time to check, and the inspector ends up hearing argument about the site area.

What the document is for

At a hearing or an inquiry, the Inspectorate expects the appellant and the local planning authority to produce an agreed statement covering the factual and policy background. It is not evidence in the ordinary sense. It is the shared platform the evidence sits on.

Three benefits follow, and they are practical rather than procedural. Agreed facts do not need a witness, which shortens the event and reduces the cost. Agreed policy means the argument moves to interpretation rather than to which policies apply. And the list of matters in dispute, which every good statement contains, becomes the agenda for the inquiry.

It is a different document from the appellant's statement of case, which sets out the appellant's own argument and is filed separately. Confusing the two produces a statement the council cannot sign, because half of it is advocacy.

There is a fourth benefit that is easy to miss. Drafting the statement forces both sides to test their own case early, and it is common for a reason for refusal to fall away during the drafting because the officer cannot find the evidence for it. That is a good outcome and it is worth pursuing deliberately.

What goes into it

The core content is stable across appeals.

The site and its surroundings, described in terms both parties accept. The planning history, with application references and dates. The description of development and the list of drawings the appeal is based on, which needs to be exact. The development plan, with each relevant policy identified, its status, and whether the parties agree it is up to date. Relevant national policy and guidance, with the edition stated. Any agreed technical facts.

Then two lists. Matters agreed, and matters in dispute. Write both. A statement that records only agreement leaves the inspector guessing about scope.

Conditions belong here too. Agreeing a schedule of conditions without prejudice to the parties' positions on the merits saves an hour at the end of the event and removes any suggestion that the appellant was unwilling to accept controls. The same applies to the status of any section 106 obligation and its completion date.

Housing land supply deserves its own paragraph on any residential appeal outside a very recently adopted plan. Agreeing the requirement figure, the base date, the components of supply and the sites in dispute turns a week of argument into a short schedule with a handful of contested entries.

Where the appeal turns on a technical topic, the underlying document should be identified by name and date. Referring to "the heritage evidence" is not enough when the parties later disagree about which version of the Heritage Statement was before the council.

Topic statements and who signs them

On larger appeals a single statement is supplemented by topic-specific ones, agreed between the expert on each side rather than between the advocates. Highways is the most common, followed by heritage, ecology, drainage, noise and housing land supply.

The advantage is that the experts can agree the technical ground without either side's advocate deciding what is safe to concede. A highways statement of common ground that agrees trip rates, the assessment years, the junction geometry and the accident record leaves only the interpretation of the capacity results in dispute, which is a much narrower argument. Where the topic is transport, having the agreed inputs recorded also protects the Transport Assessment from being reopened at the event.

Who signs matters. A statement signed by the case officer binds the council in practice even where it does not bind it in law, and a statement circulated but never signed carries much less weight. Get names and dates on it.

Timing within the appeal programme

The Inspectorate sets the date, and it is earlier than most people expect. For inquiries the statement is normally required at or before the proof of evidence stage, and the reforms that shortened inquiry timetables pushed it earlier still. For hearings it is required in advance of the event.

Work backwards. Send a first draft to the council at least four weeks before the deadline, containing everything you believe is agreed, with the disputed matters clearly marked. Councils are under-resourced on appeals and a draft they can edit is far more likely to come back than a request to prepare one.

Chase in writing. If the authority does not engage, the correspondence is the evidence you will rely on later, because failure to cooperate in the preparation of a statement of common ground is the kind of procedural behaviour that can support an application for costs.

Drafting to narrow the issues

The skill is deciding what to offer as agreed. Two rules serve well.

Agree anything you cannot sensibly dispute. Site area, distances, floor areas, ground levels, the planning history, the content of consultation responses. Fighting over facts that a tape measure settles damages credibility on the points that matter.

Do not agree conclusions. There is a difference between agreeing that the proposal would be visible from a listed building and agreeing that it would harm its setting. The first is a fact. The second is the case. Statements go wrong when a well-meaning consultant agrees a sentence that concedes the appeal.

Write in short numbered paragraphs so that the inspector and the advocates can cross-refer to them at the event. And keep a version history, because a paragraph that changed between drafts will be asked about.

One more discipline. Read the reasons for refusal alongside the draft and check that every one of them appears somewhere in the matters in dispute. A reason that has quietly dropped out of the council's case should be recorded as withdrawn in writing, because that record is what supports a later costs application and it stops the point reappearing on the day.

When agreement cannot be reached

Sometimes it cannot, and the answer is to record that rather than to abandon the document.

Produce the statement with the agreed sections signed and the disputed paragraphs shown in both parties' preferred wording, marked as not agreed. Inspectors accept that readily and it is far better than two competing statements.

Where the disagreement is about a fact rather than a judgement, say what evidence would settle it. If the parties disagree about the background sound level, note the surveys each relies on and the dates they were taken, so the inspector can see why the numbers differ.

And do not let the statement become the argument. It is a framing document with a deadline, and the merits belong in the proofs and the Planning Statement that supported the application. Where an appeal is coming and the underlying supporting documents are thin, the full report list is the quickest way to identify what should have been submitted at application stage.

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.