Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

Negatively worded conditions 'count' towards the 5 planning obligations

Former Member, modified 10 Years ago.

Negatively worded conditions 'count' towards the 5 planning obligations

Hi all.

As you will know the NPPG now allows the use of a negatively worded condition to seucre a later planning obligation (if the 6 and 3 respective tests are satsified).

It was recently suggested to me (by someone whose name and profession will remain undeclared) that in doing so the planning obligation would not count towards the five or more planning obligations as per CIL Reg 123 (3) (b).

It is my view that the use of a planning condition would constitutute a reason for granting planning permission (as otherwise it would fail the tests for being a condition) ipso facto such as method does count towards the 'five', and if we have already had our five at April 2015 (or when we introduce CIL) we would be unable to enter into the planning obligation.

Any thoughts would be welcome.

James

Former Member, modified 10 Years ago.

Negatively worded conditions 'count' towards the 5 planning obligations

The relevant part of the NPPG makes it clear that such negative conditions should only be used in exceptional circumstances. They are therefore not going to be a widely used means of avoiding the pooling restrictions.

Whether the rare agreements arising from such negative conditions would or wouldn't count towards the pooling limits is an interesting question. It is arguable that an agreement entered into after a permission has been issued can't be regarded as having been a reason for granting the permission. On the other hand, it is also arguable that the future completion of an agreement, secured by a condition, was a reason for granting the permission.

Ultimately, if put to them, it would be the courts (the new planning court?) that would have to decide the point.