 |
 |
Jason I was part of the team that drafted the conditions. This started in the Planning Committee of the Standing Conference on Land Contamination. The idea was to have succinct enforceable conditions that reflected current practice. Conditions were drawn from individual councils and also CLOGs nationally. Where these had been adopted they had been checked by the respective planners. The conditions were drafted and went to the DCLG where the Planning Officers Association also checked and amended before they were published. The standard conditions were done to update those in 11/95 and in PPS23. They are designed to be flexible and not necessarily included all together. They can be changed due to local circumstances. They should also be used with the proviso that a Phase 1 has already been submitted with the application (as PPS23). Some authorities and environmental lawyers have suggested that the blurb in the letter prior to the conditions should be used to give full context. Paul Paul Pearse Environmental Health Technician Environment Services, Maldon District Council, Princes Road, Maldon, CM9 5DL 01621 875728 | www.maldon.gov.uk -----Original Message----- From: Jason Bale [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 3:50 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Planning Conditions Afternoon all, Would appreciate some advice/ views on Planning Conditions, and in particular the Standard Planning Conditions issued back in 2008 by the DCLG In Wales the Welsh Local Government Association, Welsh Assembly Government and Environment Agency Wales (WLGA/WAG/EAW)Land Contamination Working Group are looking at developing standard planning conditions in a similar vein to those detailed in the attached, for the 22 LA across Wales. One of the issues that has come out of our recent discussions on these, is the actual validity of the conditions and in particular the Site Characterisation condition. Recently one of the Welsh Authorities has had several planning appeals, involving applications where CL conditions had been recommended. Most recently the planning inspector considered that the condition that was being proposed, which I am lead to believe was very similar to the Site Characteristic condition, was prescriptive, unreasonable, onerous, too long and, in the event that every stage of an investigation was not necessary, unenforceable and technically impossible to discharge. It was explained that a short condition requiring the site to be investigated and contamination addressed to the satisfaction of the LPA would be suitable. It was the responsibility of the officer to decide and justify the point at which satisfactory information had been provided etc. In view of the above the CLO discussed our proposed Welsh standard conditions with planning officers who considered that the same thing applied to the proposed conditions. Reference was made to Welsh Office Circular 35/95 (Circular 11/95 for England - The Use of Conditions in Planning), page 9, para 14. It was the view that the conditions failed the 6 tests set out in the document. In light of the above WLGA/WAG/EAW Land Contamination Group are now reconsidering the conditions to be adopted, and I was therefore seeking the views of a wider audience on the standard conditions, in particular: 1. - do you use the standard conditions or similarly worded conditions as the attached when conditioning planning apps; 2. - has your authority ever been challenged on the suitability of the conditions 3. - do you agree/ disagree with the planning inspectorate/ planners that the standard conditions do not meet the 6 tests of Circulars 11/95 or 35/95). Any views would be most welcome and apologies for such a long email on a Friday afternoon. Regards Jason Bale Group Leader/Arweinydd Grwp Pollution Control Division/Rheoli Llygredd Strategic Planning & Environment/Cynllunio Strategol a'r Amgylchedd. Tel/Ffon: 02920 871 896 Fax/Ffacs: 02920 827 431