Copy of DoE Circular 1/85: The use of conditions in planning permissions?

[Malc]

Hi,

As it says in the subject I'm looking for a copy of:

DoE Circular 1/85: The use of conditions in planning permissions

I can find the later 11/95 circular online but not the earlier one. Planning inspectorate don't have a copy either, I've asked.

Thanks

 

[Leofric]

Just interested but do you have a specific query about planning consent conditions

 

[Malc]

I have a planning condition from 1986 (hence the need for the 1985 guidance) which I believe is ultra vires. In effect it removes PD rights on part of my front boundary wall. I'm thinking of applying for LDC to establish that PD rights apply to the whole wall and thus the condition is void as it is invalid. I want to be able to prove that the condition violated the guidance in force at the time (it violates 11/95).

 

[Leofric]

Don't know about the DoE circular you mention but have you tried HMSO ? Can't help asking, what do you actually want to do to the boundary wall ? (Removal of PD rights just means you need to apply for planning permission of course)

 

[^woody^]

You do realise that 1986 was 33 years ago?

 

[securespark]

Sadly, yes I do. And it hurts.

 

[Malc]

Yes I know how long ago it is. And yes I could apply for planning permission but LDC is cheaper isn't it? 50% of planning fee if you ask in advance.

The removal of PD rights wasn't the direct intention, the wording was just poor and this is the effect. In fact the whole thing was a total c*ck-up, the wording is taken from an instruction to the builder on the plans and I can show that this was on the first plans submitted, i.e. before any consideration by planning, so it did not originate from planning. And also if PD rights are re-instated then I could change the wall again if I wanted to. Applying for permission would mean that I would have to apply for permission to make changes in the future too.

PS Thanks for the HMSO suggestion, I've emailed them.

 

[Leofric]

The removal of PD rights wasn't the direct intention, the wording was just poor and this is the effect. In fact the whole thing was a total c*ck-up, the wording is taken from an instruction to the builder on the plans and I can show that this was on the first plans submitted, i.e. before any consideration by planning, so it did not originate from planning. And also if PD rights are re-instated then I could change the wall again if I wanted to. Applying for permission would mean that I would have to apply for permission to make changes in the future too.

you've lost me

 

[Malc]

OK, in detail then, the plans had a note to the builder, block up gate opening to match existing wall. These 1st plans had a garage in front of this opening, garage was moved in 2nd plans but note remained. Note was converted to a planning condition, hence planning condition says that the section of wall that was the gate opening has to stand for all time and must stay as is. Condition says "as per approved plans". Nothing in the planning file (letters, or reasons) about why this condition exists and reason given makes no sense either. Hence a c*ck-up.

 

[^woody^]

Sadly, yes I do. And it hurts.

Rub cream on it, 4 times a day.

 

[Leofric]

OK, in detail then, the plans had a note to the builder, block up gate opening to match existing wall. These 1st plans had a garage in front of this opening, garage was moved in 2nd plans but note remained. Note was converted to a planning condition, hence planning condition says that the section of wall that was the gate opening has to stand for all time and must stay as is. Condition says "as per approved plans". Nothing in the planning file (letters, or reasons) about why this condition exists and reason given makes no sense either. Hence a c*ck-up.

Consent condition stating work to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is normal. If you don't want something to form part of the planning consent you don't show it on the drawings submitted for planning approval
'Note was converted to a planning condition, hence planning condition says that the section of wall that was the gate opening has to stand for all time and must stay as is.' - does it actually say that or is that your interpretation
' Nothing in the planning file (letters, or reasons) about why this condition exists and reason given makes no sense either. Hence a c*ck-up.' - isn't the reason because it was shown on the drawings submitted to Planning . The note about blocking up the gate should have been deleted from the drawing if it was no longer a proposal for approval. The planners are perfectly entitled to require work to be carried out to the approved plans and I don't see how they were not legally entitled to include that condition.
Is there actually a condition removing Permitted Development Rights
What do you actually want to do to the wall anyway

 

[Malc]

As I said, the condition says gate entrance must be stopped up as per approved plans. The plans say block entrance with matching stone. Hence the condition is that a wall at the gate entrance must exist and must be like the existing wall at that time. The removes the PD rights for that section of wall as under PD you could change the wall look, dry stone to fence for example, or open plan even.

Plans typically contain a lot of information but not all of that is turned into planning conditions. Planning condition guidance says that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary for the plans to be passed. There is no reasonable justification for this condition. The given reason is highway safety but for that it should just say vehicular access via entrance is forbidden, it does not need to impose a wall in perpetuity. Also, the previous plans (still in force at the time of this application) granted an access at this point so there can be no safety issue.

Hence all one can say is the condition was inserted by mistake, it has no justification and it is invalid. There is no explanation for the need of the condition in the planning file, it just appears in the officer's report having been on the earlier plans too. I suspect but cannot prove that the condition was a requirement from the parish council which falsely claimed to own the highway land at this point. If so it had no right to be a planning condition either. Best case is planning and highways were negligent. Worse case, they conspired with the parish council to prevent the lawful use of the highway. If they did then they didn't write it down so far as I have been able to find. I can prove the parish council claimed to own the land and that this was false and that the land is highway and that planning advised then to forbid access across "their" land in order to frustrate planning permission. All of that is written down in the planning files.

 

[^woody^]

As I said, the condition says gate entrance must be stopped up as per approved plans. The plans say block entrance with matching stone. Hence the condition is that a wall at the gate entrance must exist and must be like the existing wall at that time. The removes the PD rights for that section of wall as under PD you could change the wall look, dry stone to fence for example, or open plan even.

Plans typically contain a lot of information but not all of that is turned into planning conditions. Planning condition guidance says that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary for the plans to be passed. There is no reasonable justification for this condition. The given reason is highway safety but for that it should just say vehicular access via entrance is forbidden, it does not need to impose a wall in perpetuity. Also, the previous plans (still in force at the time of this application) granted an access at this point so there can be no safety issue.

Hence all one can say is the condition was inserted by mistake, it has no justification and it is invalid. There is no explanation for the need of the condition in the planning file, it just appears in the officer's report having been on the earlier plans too. I suspect but cannot prove that the condition was a requirement from the parish council which falsely claimed to own the highway land at this point. If so it had no right to be a planning condition either. Best case is planning and highways were negligent. Worse case, they conspired with the parish council to prevent the lawful use of the highway. If they did then they didn't write it down so far as I have been able to find. I can prove the parish council claimed to own the land and that this was false and that the land is highway and that planning advised then to forbid access across "their" land in order to frustrate planning permission. All of that is written down in the planning files.

And yet what is the timescale permitted to deal with conditions you don't agree with? 34 years or more?

 

[Malc]

Not sure I understand your point. Lots of things get reviewed many years later if they are found to be handle wrong or even criminally. In case my question was does anyone have a copy of DoE 1/85. I been asked why and explained. If you don't like the explanation well ok, your prerogative to hold a different opinion, but off topic to my question does anyone have a copy of DoE 1/85.

 

[Leofric]

Well, Planning, Highways and parish council now - good luck with that