Planning Application red line - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Mot authorities I have dealt with take a very rigid stance with the red line any alteration to it if they increasing or decreasing the site unless they relate to the access to the site normally require an entirely new application. It cannot be done an as minor or non material amendment or as a variation of condition application.

Thanks Martin, This is the postion I have found so far although nobody has provided a legal basis for it. The case I have in mind involves a very large site with a red line several kilometres long. The potential variation is no more than 10 metres (not to do with an access). I think it would be non-material although if there is an issue of principle at stake that is, of course, a different matter.

TCPA 90 s.58(1) provides the legal basis for planning permission on application. It then defers the details to a development order. In England the relevant oredr is the Development Management Order, which provides at Article 6(1)(c)(i) that any such application shall be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land. Ownership certificates have to be submitted based on the application site - they cannot subsequently be amended (see R(Pridmore v Salisbury DC 2004, para 24); consultation and publicity need to be undertaken, which in part is related to the geographical location and boundary of the site; the permission that follows is directly related to and in response to the application. All of the above indicate that it is not possible to extend a red line after the event. Indeed the principles of Pridmore would suggest that it may not be lawful to extend the red line during the consideration of the application. You cannot rewrite history by seeking to amend this boundary. In my view you cannot entertain and application under s.96A which seeks to include further land as such would have to fail the definition of 'non-material'.

I would question over-reliance on the Pridmore case. We had an appeal case where a planning inspector allowed an appellant to serve notice on a landowner who had been omitted before the application was submitted. His rationale was simple, the area of land involved was small and no one would be prejudiced. I would generally consider the re-serving of ownership notces on a case by case basis in the interests of the sensible adminstration of the planning system.. Admittedly the Sec of State and his inspectors are not bound by s.327A of the Act, but it is in no one's interest to delay applications if a minor procedural error can be rectified without detriment to any party. A delberate or significant breach of procedure woudl be a different matter. As for the red line, s.96A and s.73 amendments have been accompanied by considerable confusion about what can and cannot be achieved by these procedures. I do not see why the red line is any different to any other amendment which it may now be possible to make via those two routes. CLG guidance on using s73 in "Flexibility for planning permisions" talks about "a development which would not be substantially different from the one that has been approved." it appears that it is for the decision maker (LPA or SoS ) to decide whether or not that that would occur on a case by case basis.. S.73 results in a new planning permission in any event.

I would sugest that 'prejudice' is not the correct test. Article 12 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management) Procedure Order 2010 imposes the requirement for the relevant certificate. Section 65(5) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 says that a local planning authority shall not “entertain” any application for planning permission where these requirements have not been satisfied. As for the red line I would agree with Dean's analysis.