The statement of common ground is a written statement prepared jointly by the Local Planning Authority and the appellant. It should be received by the Secretary of State no later than four weeks before the inquiry. The purpose of the statement of common ground is to set out the agreed factual information about the appeal proposal, leading to shorter proofs of evidence and saving time at the inquiry.

The statement should contain basic information on which the parties have agreed, such as the precise nature of the appeal proposal, a description of the site, its planning history and the relevant planning policies in the Development Plan. Specific items that should be included are set out below. The statement should not include opinion or comment. Matters which remain in dispute should be dealt with in the proofs of evidence. The statement should complement the proofs of evidence and not duplicate them.

In addition to basic information about the appeal, agreement can often be reached on technical matters and topics that rely on basic statistical data. For example, traffic evidence can be simplified and the issues refined by agreeing matters such as traffic flows, design standards, and the basis for forecasting the level of traffic the proposal would generate. The topics on which agreement might be reached in any particular appeal will depend on the matters at issue and the circumstances of the case.

Agreement should be sought before the inquiry about the conditions that any permission granted should contain. It is sensible to reach agreement on any necessary section 106 planning obligations before the inquiry, as material submitted after the inquiry cannot normally be taken into account.

As well as identifying matters which are not in real dispute, it may also be useful for the statement to identify areas where agreement is not possible. The statement should include references to show where those matters are dealt with in the proofs or other documentary evidence.

However, the duty of Inspectors is not simply to accept the statement of common ground or to react to the evidence presented. Consequently, Inspectors will probe the evidence thoroughly if their judgement or professional expertise indicates that either:

all of the evidence necessary for a soundly reasoned decision has not been put before them; or,
that a material part of the evidence they do have has not been adequately tested.

The investigative role can be particularly important in call-in cases, where it is possible for the Local Planning Authority to be on the same side as the applicant. Here, Inspectors will ensure that the other side of the argument is explored thoroughly, especially with regard to the matters fundamental to the decision, rather than seemingly accepting the statement of common ground without question.

Further guidance is given in Annex 3(ii) of Circular 5/2000.

Do include –

Basic factual information, where there is no dispute between the parties, on matters such as:-

The appeal proposal, including details of any amendments to the application

A description of the site (including agreed dimensions) and surrounding area

The relevant planning history

A list of relevant development plan policies, including the stage reached and weight to be attached to any draft plan

A list of relevant national planning advice (PPG’s, Circulars), regional planning advice and any relevant supplementary planning guidance

Agreed evidence on technical matters, and topics which rely on statistical data, eg:- traffic flows

Appeal reference: APP/X6789/A/01/1234567

Date of inquiry: 5 December 2001

Site address and description of the development: Land west of Union Way, Redgate, Surrey. Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide mixed A1 retail, B1 offices, 40 self-contained flats (including 10 flats for affordable housing) and 5 dwellinghouses.

Appellant: A Brown Developments Ltd

Local Planning Authority: North Surrey BC

Description of the Site and Surrounding Area

The appeal site is within the urban confines of Redgate in an area of mixed use. To the north and east are predominantly residential areas. To the south are two large industrial estates. The appellants own a total of 1.8 ha, of which the development site covers 1.5 ha. The gross floorspace of the existing buildings is about 1765 sq m.

The site has a long history of industrial use. For many years it was used as a maintenance and transport depot by a firm of fork lift truck manufacturers, employing up to 50 people. The firm re-located in 1995 and the site has remained vacant since it was acquired by the appellants in 1996.

There is a wooded area at the eastern end of the site which is covered by a 1974 Tree Preservation Order. There is also unprotected woodland at the western end of the site.

To the north, the land rises towards houses in Meadow Lane, behind a belt of deciduous trees some 15 m high on the northern boundary. The backs of the properties in Meadow Lane are some 30 to 35 m from the site’s northern boundary. At the bottom of many of their gardens there is close-boarded fencing up to 2 m high adjacent to the boundary. The closest Meadow Lane property to a building in the proposed development would be No 21 at 45 m. Other existing houses at Sunnyside, east of the site, would be 55 m away from a proposed building.

Access to the site is from Union Way, which forms part of the A666 road. Bus stops for local bus routes are located within 100 m in both directions. Redgate railway station is about 1 km away.

Planning History

The site was allocated as a defined business area of Redgate in the North Surrey Local Plan (1994).

The Deposit Draft version of the district-wide Redgate District Local Plan defined the appeal site as a main business area with a provision for 1500 sq m of new floorspace at the western end. Two firms of housebuilders sought deletion of the land from employment use and proposed that a housing allocation should be substituted.

The site remains allocated for employment in the adopted North Surrey District Local Plan (March 2000).

After the appellants acquired the site they submitted planning application reference 00/123 in April 2000 for redevelopment of the site to provide retail units, office space, 65 self-contained flats and 12 houses, with parking and amenity space. The application was refused in June 2000 on the grounds that the proposal represented a loss of employment generating land; that it represented over development of the site; and on highway safety grounds from increased use of the access onto a main road.

The Proposed Development

The present application reference 01/678 was submitted in September 2000. It is a revised version of the application refused in June 2000. It proposes an increase in the floorspace allocated to retail and business use and a reduction in the number of residential units to 40 self-contained flats (including 10 for affordable housing) and 5 houses. Copies of the application and plans are in Appendix 1 to the appellants’ proof of evidence.

Amendment no 1 was submitted to the Council in November 2000 and proposed a revised means of access to the site in an attempt to overcome the Council’s highway objections. Details and plans of the amendment are in Appendix 2 to the appellants’ proof of evidence.

Development Plan

The statutory development plan is the North Surrey District Local Plan adopted in March 2000. The relevant policies are:-

EMP6 – protection of land and buildings generating employment
EMP12 – amenity and design of employment generating development
H1 – housing provision
H6 – new housing development
H7 – affordable housing
H9 – mixed housing/commercial development
CD15 – design of new development
ENV7 – protection of trees

Copies of the relevant policies are in Appendix 3 to the appellants’ proof of evidence.

National Planning Advice

The following national guidance is relevant:-

PPG1 – general policies and principles (February 1997)
PPG3 – housing (March 2000)
PPG4 – industrial and commercial and small firms (November 1992)
PPG13 – transport (March 2001)
RPG9 – south east

Circular 6/98 – affordable housing

Conditions

The parties agree that, if planning permission is granted, it should be subject to conditions:-

requiring samples of external materials to be submitted to and approved by the LPA before development commences;

requiring details of all boundary treatments to be submitted to and approved by the LPA before development commences;

requiring a landscaping scheme, including details of existing trees to be retained, to be submitted to and approved by the LPA and implemented and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Matters Not in Dispute

The parties accept that the following matters can be taken as agreed:-

Employment development for B1 uses is an appropriate use of the appeal site and reflects the designation in the adopted Local Plan;

The nature and location of the proposed development is broadly acceptable in terms of sustainable development;

The appeal site lies within the built confines of Redgate;

Tree Preservation Order no 8/74 affects the wooded area at the eastern end of the appeal site. Many of the original trees have long since been removed and only young regenerated specimens survive. LPA officers have confirmed that trees may be removed from the TPO area provided that the proposed landscaping and boundary treatment conditions are agreed and implemented.

Agreed Highway Issues

The access to the appeal site is on the south side of the A666 within the urban confines of Redgate. It is located on the inside of a bend.

The A666 is a dual two-lane all-purpose road, subject to the national 70 mph speed limit in the vicinity of the appeal site.

There is street lighting for at least 1 km in both directions from the appeal site.

The annual average daily traffic flow on the A666 in the vicinity of the appeal site is 8000 vehicles per day in each direction, according to a survey by the Council’s engineering department in May 2001.

An agreed summary of the injury accident data on the A666 within 10 km of the appeal site is set out in Appendix 4 to the LPA’s proof of evidence, based on information provided by Surrey County Council and North Surrey Borough Council.

The existing access to the site is 4.2 m wide, allowing the passage of only one vehicle at a time.

The radii at the existing access point are approximately 4 m in each direction.

The width of the central reservation crossing at the access point is 4.5 m. There is a central reservation crash barrier on either side of the central cross over for the appeal site. Other than junctions or crossing points, the entire length of the A666 within the built area of Redgate has central reservation crash barriers.

In terms of visibility from the access point, hedges and fences at the back of the highway verge are approximately 6 m from the edge of the carriageway. Visibility from 4.5 m from the edge of the carriageway is approximately 50m to the right (east) and 120 m to the left (west).

Matters in Dispute

The appeal will mainly be concerned with the following issues:-

Whether the proposed development, by reason of its size and density, seriously affects the residential amenities of local residents because of general disturbance and loss of outlook and privacy;

Whether the visual impact of the development would be unacceptable;

Whether there are sustainable objections to the overall height, bulk and scale of the main buildings;

Whether there are overriding objections to the use of the proposed access on highway safety grounds.

Signed on behalf of appellants
Signed on behalf of LPA

B Jones Date: 3.9.01
J Miller Date: 4.9.01

Position: Planning consultant
Position: Planning officer

Design Standards

The basis for forecasting the level of traffic which the proposal might generate

The pattern and frequency of public transport routes

Applicable air quality standards

Acceptable noise impact thresholds

Nature conservation survey data

Housing land availability

Agreed conditions to be included in any planning permission

The matters covered by any section 106 planning obligations

A list of matters which are not in dispute

A list of matters where agreement is not possible, with references to show

Where they are dealt with in the proofs or other documentary evidence

Do not include –

Opinion or comment

The full text of planning policies and guidance. These are best included in an appendix to the proof.

How to view PDF documents

PDF files can be viewed using Adobe's Acrobat Reader. You can download Acrobat Reader free of charge from the Adobe website. Visit Access Adobe to find out how people with visual disabilities can get the most from this software.

Statement of Common Ground - complex appeal model example

Sample statement of common ground – complex appeal