The Neighbourhood Planning Bill proposes some important changes to the planning conditions regime. DCLG published its Improving the Use of Conditions consultation paper on 7 September 2016 alongside the Bill (with a consultation deadline of 2 November 2016).
There are two main elements to the proposals.
Restriction on pre-commencement conditions
I blogged back in June when the proposal to clamp down further on pre-commencement conditions was first announced.
As it happens, in my view what is proposed in clause 7 of the Bill, that pre-commencement conditions should not be imposed without the applicant’s written agreement, is pretty sensible as a cross-check that restrictions are not introduced without discussion. Of course, it is not a panacea and in some cases the applicant may be faced with a gun to the head – accept the condition or the application is will be refused – but in many more cases there will be the opportunity for consensus to be reached and the rigmarole avoided of subsequent 73 or 96A applications to morph conditions into a regime that does not unreasonably impede development.
Indeed, why shouldn’t all conditions be agreed in draft with the applicant wherever possible?
Power for the Secretary of State to ban conditions of a prescribed description
This is more problematic. Clause 7(2) provides that such a ban must first be consulted upon and must only be for the purposes of ensuring that any condition meets the traditional tests of being
– necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
– relevant to the development and to planning considerations generally;
– sufficiently precise to make it capable of being complied with and enforced; and
– reasonable in all other respects.
Table 1 in the consultation paper lists various very general categories of conditions that should not be used (as per current planning practice guidance) and seeks views on whether any of them should be expressly prohibited by legislation. One wonders what the point of this is. The list in table 1 is very general eg
– “conditions which unreasonably impact on the deliverability of a development – eg disproportionate financial burden”
– “conditions which duplicate a requirement for compliance with other regulatory requirements – eg Building Regulations”
What will it add to have these general principles in legislation in addition to policy? Who is going to challenge the imposition of conditions by way of the courts, rather than apply to remove the offending condition by way of section 73, with the ability to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate?
Generally, as with section 106 agreements, the exercise of drafting and negotiating conditions is getting increasingly fraught. Some examples:
The Darnhall appeal
The Secretary of State dismissed an appeal for residential development at Darnhall School Lane, Winsford, Cheshire on 7 July 2016, against his inspector’s recommendations. The decision letter contains some interesting conclusions on a series of draft conditions offered by the appellant:
– training and employment – “not sufficiently precise and would be difficult to enforce, partly because it would be difficult to detect a breach”
– self-build housing – “not necessary to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. Moreover…there are still concerns raised by the Council as to the effect on affordability which leads the Secretary of State to find that this condition is not reasonable in all other respects”
– local builders – “not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and would not be strictly relevant to planning policy. Dependent on the builders or companies available through the build-out of the development the condition would be difficult to enforce, neither would it be precise, pr reasonable in all other respects”.
– local procurement – “would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Neither is it strictly related to planning. The condition would be difficult to enforce, in part because it could prove difficult to detect a breach. The Secretary of State also considers that it is unclear what the position is in relation to the availability of business within the specified area to meet the criteria and therefore whether this condition would be reasonable in all other respects”.
How does this ultra-rigid, purist, approach, fit with the approach taken by many LPAs? It doesn’t at all, obviously. The decision is under challenge, with Chris Young of No 5 Chambers acting for the appellant/claimant.
“Tailpiece” conditions
“Tailpiece” conditions, along the lines of “unless otherwise approved by the Council” are pretty irresistible to those drafting conditions, seemingly offering a way to sidestep the need for subsequent formal applications under section 73 or 96A where changes are required, as they often are. However their use has been successfully challenged in a series of cases, for instance R (Butler) v East Dorset District Council (Deputy Judge Rhodri Price-Lewis QC, 28 June 2016), Hubert v Carmarthenshire County Council (Cranston J, 5 August 2015) and R (Warley) v Wealden District Council (Deputy Judge Rabinder Singh QC, 8 July 2011). They should only be used where their scope is is closely defined in terms of the criteria to be applied by the decision maker or in terms of only extending to minor changes.
Sustainability
Eric Pickles’ ministerial statement 25 March 2015 announced the withdrawal of the Code for Sustainable Homes and that until amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 are introduced (which are still awaited) the Secretary of State would “expect Local Planning Authorities to take this statement of the government’s intention into account in applying existing policies and not set conditions above a Code Level 4 equivalent”.
The same announcement advised LPAs that they should only set additional standards to those contained in the Building Regulations if they are able to justify why this is required and provide evidence to that effect.
The planning system’s flexibility can be a great asset in negotiating planning permissions that both protect the public interest and meet the applicant’s requirements. We need to be careful that by ad hoc measures this flexibility is not lost – or that the process of issuing a planning permission becomes more routinely a negotiation between respective legal teams and tiptoe around the elephant traps, as it often already is on large schemes.
Simon Ricketts 9.9.16
Personal views, et cetera
SIMONICITY 
Written agreement can narrow differences between applicants and local authorities, recognising that applicants might sometimes consider the agreement to be forced, and so appeals or section 73 applications might still be required.
Several of the possible types of conditions which the consultation paper suggests could be banned are already unlawful on long established caselaw:
Conditions which reserve outline application details
Conditions requiring land to be given up
Conditions requiring payment of money or other consideration
In other situations, even normally inappropriate conditions might be essential sometimes, so it will be difficult to write further prohibitions which apply in all or specified circumstances. If the regulation requires the planning authority to exercise judgment, then it may be little different in effect to the current policy.
LikeLike