Conditions and Informatives - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Conditions and Informatives
Lisa Walton, modified 9 Years ago.
Conditions and Informatives
Enthusiast Posts: 30 Join Date: 15/09/14 Recent PostsCan I ask if anyone has ever sought to put specific details to accompany a condition, in an informative? I've recently discharged a condition (of an application that was dealt with prior to me working at the authority), the details were in accordance with the approved plans and I felt reasonable in terms of the details of the condition. It hadn't occured to me to read the informatives. However more stringent requirements were set out in the informative. Advice was sought by my authority before using this approach but its not something I've ever come across. Can anyone advise?
thanks
I am not a planning officer but work for environmental health on consultee responses. We have been advised by our planners to put certain details for example which edition of a British Standard for noise assessment is expected to be used in an informative rather than putting it in the condition. This can make the condtion more policy focussed and general and avoid technical issues if a standard changes or the decsion is endlessly renewed or repeated for example. Other planners seem happy to put such specfics in the condition and reserve informatives for repetative informatiion realted to planning process .
i dont beleive the informatives we reccomend could be described as more stringent than the condtions but they do add detail and technical focus that support the condition.
Other consultees for example the EA reccomend quite extensive informatives on the expected tehcnical submissions and related legislation in a similar way
Definately worth glancing at the informtives to check for technical stuff but you may have a lot of standard text.
Lisa,The answer is that informatives cannot be used in lieu of or in addition to conditions to control the permission.The case law is very clear on the subject, it is only by condition that a permission is controlled, controls or retrictions on say 'numbers' or 'times', cannot be controlled by the description etc They cannot be inferred ( see I'm Your Man...1998 ) The NPPG says ....Paragraph: 026 Reference ID: 21a-026-20140306
What status do informative notes appended to decision notices have?
Informative notes allow the local planning authority to draw an applicant’s attention to other relevant matters – for example the requirement to seek additional consents under other regimes. Informative notes do not carry any legal weight and cannot be used in lieu of planning conditions or a legal obligation to try and ensure adequate means of control for planning purposes
Lisa Walton, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: Conditions and Informatives
Enthusiast Posts: 30 Join Date: 15/09/14 Recent PostsThanks both - i do take your point Martin but what Chris has suggested is my understanding.
In my particular case - I have looked at the approved plans and the wording of the condition (which does not say 'notwithstanding the approved plans...) and the rooflights are not shown as fixed (it refers to them having restricted opening). The condition states that details of the opening mechanism and obscure glazing shall be submitted. I've discharged the condition on the basis of restricted opening. The objectors are now saying that this is not in accordance with the informative, which requires the rooflights (or at least 2 of them) to be fixed non-opening design. I do not believe we can enforce this informative and I do not believe the applicant is likely to want to make them fixed.
Sure, our informatives are not in lieu of controls but in support or highlight other requirements, in support does not contradict the NPPF, in lieu of would.
We dont have sight of the plans or condition or timing but I would imagine plans received with opening windows and non obscured glass, some objection, condtion applied requiring further submission of detail for approval with the intention of controlling whatever legitimate concern was raised (what reasons were applied?), informative then used to confirm what would be approvable, the applicant and objectors presumably would agree setting this out in writing was reasonable in prefference to not making any statement at all.
So going by NPPF, informative not enforceable in its own right, informative indicative only of what would be approvable (perhaps this was even discussed with and agreed with the applicant ), your discarge of plans can re examine objective of condtion and decide if reasons met or not guided by but not bound by informative.
PS some ventilation and escape requirement is allmost certainly needed to meet building and fire regs but this would not have to use the window
This is an interesting discussion as it really does highlight that there is considerable variation in the way that some councils use conditions and informatives - and some of these are not in accordance with the NPPF and Planning practice guidance. PAS is doing some work on this with some local authorities and industry representatives - coming on the back of the complaints that have led to the introduction of the deemed consent provisions.
The guidance is clear that informatives have no status in terms of enforcement, but can help applicants to understand what would be acceptable.
But in this situation - how much easier would it have been to simply state in the condition that the velux windows should be non opening/restricted opening or whatever is required and be quite clear why this is being required in the reason for the condition -
i.e. not just the standard "to protect the residential amenity" but " because if openable the velux windows would permit overlooking of the habitable rooms in the house to the rear". This would be clearer for all concerned (including teh neightbour) and would not have required the submission of approval an approval of details application.
From the planning benchmark data that authorities collected a couple of years ago, we know that on average, a council spends more than twice the fee on every approval of condition application it receives. Approval of conditions applications should really only be used where there is a real need to be assured the detail is acceptable and there is no straight forward way to describe what is required. If there is a standard then refer to the standard in the condition (there is no need to repeat the wording of the standard).
Look out for PAS work on conditions - or contact me if you would like to see the draft and comment on it.
Hi Phillipa, we are looking at reviewing our condtions to apply the 'does it need to be a pre-commencement condition' test, and
would be interested in seeing/commenting on the draft you are working on. Is there a timetable?
Im told part of our reason for putting detail such as standards in the informatives is past advise from planning inspector to do just that for reasons of clarity and to address constant updating or replacement of standards with alternatives.
Updating informatives is also much easier than reissuing,and reprogramming condtions which go through quite a formal adoption process
If PAS work on conditions for environmental health issues (noise, vibration, light, odour, contaminated land) I would be interested in any draft
We are currently revising our conditions, we currently have 150 'standard' conditions plus bespoke one's for individual cases. Our performance on clearing condition apps is poor as there is little focus and chasing condiotns accounts for 12% of our enforcement cases, albeit normally resulting in no further action. Conditions have become a mess and our discussions with developers show that they take often take longer to clear ther conditions than get the permission and this lack of focus results in less care on conditions and consequential complaints.
A key challenge in reducing the conditions work will be councillor and officer training - we have recently had a velux case similar to the one above which finished with committee deciding not to take enforcement action against the half opening, half obscured velux, following a site visit where they couldn't see anything standing on a chair to peer through the velux!. The condition was only put on because neighbours objected, got ward councillor involved and imposed an unreasonable condition. The officer should have confirmed tha the impact on neighbours amenity was not significant and pushed back to the Councillor.
This thread will beuseful as part of our review on the use of informatives, which are clearly just that; useful additional information.
I would just like to expand this one a liitle bit. Lets assume a condition refers to taking away PD rights either under the UCO or the GPDO. If it refers to a specific piece of legislation which was applicable at the time, then does this remain in perpetuity or does it fall if that particular piece of legislation is superseeded, unless the condition carries the .....'...'as amended' proviso.
As time rolls on we have old conditions which refer to old orders which have been superseeded and the numbering/lettering is very dirfferent. Does that matter or does the aim of the condition still apply.
This is an interesting one - I think that is the legislation has changed substantively then you would no longer be able to rely on the restriction. Hoever if its simply a change in numbering - should we get a consilidation of the Permitted Development Order - then it would be reasonable to expect that the terms of the condition's restriction would still apply.
Anyone else got a view? I am sure there will be some case law on this - I just couldt find it!
Meanwhile - for those who might have missed it in the PAS Bulletin yesterday, we have now published some notes to help LPAs to consider how best to manage the deemed consent processes. Look for this at http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas1/pre-application/-/journal_content/56/332612/7226890/ARTICLE, . Near the top of the list for things to do must be to make sure that your regular consultees are all aware of the implications for this new legislative provision. The big statutory consultees will have heard about this (I trust) but the same might not be true of highways and environmental health.
Would be good to hear about any experiences that you are having with this.
Off topic but it seems some applicants will have an incentive to put in poor information on deemed consents. They might hope this is spotted late and if a consultee requests clarifcation, if they can get to week 6 they can issue a notice and have a guaranteed week 8 start.
The alternative of resolving the information deficit will be more expesnive and has no 8 week guarantee. Only counter seems to be always refuse if information deficient or alwasy agree extension if information deficient.