Split Decisions

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - This week

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

Split Decisions

The NP Practice Guidance indicates that "in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate to use a condition to grant permission for only part of the development. Such conditions should only be used where the acceptable and unacceptable parts of the proiposal are clearly distinguishable...". Does anybody have example of this approach? Is there anymore substantive guidance?

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Split Decisions

Hi Michael

We don't use conditions but we do issue split decisions by using two sepearate decision notices. The first permits that part of the application which is acceptable, the second refusing the offending part. Inspector's don't have anything adverse to say about this - when it comes to appeals they set aside the part of the proposal which was permitted and focus on the refused part. Obviously this only works on easily separable developments - for example we may permit a rear conservatory but refuse the front porch under the same permission.

We put a note on the each decisio notice to say that this forms only one part of the LPAs decision and that the part of the proposal relating to X was permitted/refused.

Hope that makes sense.

Not aware of any guidance but if it's good enough for the SoS it's good enough for us! I guess PINS may have some guidance?

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Split Decisions

Thanks Paul. Googling "Split Decisions" throws up examples such as the one you outline (ie related to acceptable and unacceptable aspects of house extensions etc). But has anyone taken this approach to, say, approve 200 houses to the north of an existing road, but refuse the 100 to the south?

Mike

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Split Decisions

I'd very much doubt it! I'm not sure such a development would be 'easily distinguishable'. Whilst physically the road could be seen to do the trick I would've though there would be wider impacts that need to be considered in the round as well as S106 issues. You might be able to come up with mechanisms to solve the latter to ensure the right infrastructure was provided at the right time, but it would be messy and probably take forever...