Documents referred to in decision notices

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

Documents referred to in decision notices

I am seeking to clarify exactly what documents must be referred to within decision notices, particularly planning application decision notices. In addition, it would be helpful if other LPAs could advise what their current practices are and why.

We have a disagreement, with one argument being that all documents submitted as part of the application should be listed as 'approved documents' (including existing plans, D&A statements, heritage statements, acoustic reports, etc.) to clarify the approved scheme and assist monitoring compliance. The other argument is that only the approved proposed plans should be explicitly listed as the approved documents. There are implications for what has become the standard condition referring to the approved documents for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning - should this only refer to approved proposed plans, or everything submitted?

The DMPO, as far as i have found, fails to provide clarity, but does state that where an environmental statement has been submitted this should be referred to as being taken into consideration.

Any input , opinions or suggestions would be appreciated.

Former Member, modified 8 Years ago.

RE: Documents referred to in decision notices

Hi,

Like you, I am aware of no regulation dictating what documents must be referred to in decision notices, so you could just not list anything. But that would be quite radical!

If there is no doubt as to what the approved plans are then there seems little risk in not imposing a specific condition listing them. But of course it is best practice to have such a condition because it allows minor material amendments via S73. And if there are multiple versions of plans on file it makes sense to be clear as to what the approved versions are.

As to what you should list, there's no hard and fast rule. If you don't list documents like the DAS and surveys etc then arguably you can't take enforcement action on the back of them. I know of a case where a barn conversion was permitted, the barn was demolished and rebuilt instead, but the applicant argued that it was in accordance with the approved (proposed) plans! This might have been more easily rebutted if the structural survey and existing plans were listed as 'approved documents' in a condition, but actually the subsequent enforcement appeal was dismissed anyway.

On the other hand, if you list all the documents then arguably you need to ensure they are all consistent, clear and enforceable - which often isn't the case. How often do you get a DAS amended when you receive amended plans, so that they are consistent? Are you going to check everything for consistency? What action will you take if a neighbour complains that it's not in accordance with some random part of the heritage statement? You are also going to waste a lot of time typing out lists!

I don't think there's a 'right' answer to this. My advice is to do what you think works best for your customers (you could ask them) and don't be afraid to take a bespoke approach for different applications. If you've got a simple house extension with no amended plans, why not just use 'in accordance with the plans submitted with the application', for complex major applications list everything, and for the rest do something in between as appropriate to the level of risk?