"Grampian" and "British Railways Board" revisited - the use of pre-conditions in circumstance of uncertainty
Series: Journal of Planning and Environment Law ; January 2001, 24-30(7)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: Considers the use of pre-conditions in the planning process in the light of "Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen DC" (1983), "British Railways Board v SoS Environment" (1994)(ABS50018), DoE Circular 11/95, "Millington v SoS Environment and Shrewsbury and Atcham BC" (1999) and "Merritt v SoS Environment and Mendip DC" (2000) and describes the current state of the law as set out in these cases. Observes that it is not invalid to impose a negative condition even where there is no reasonable prospect of it being fulfilled within the time-limit of the permission, and that the fact that it is unlikely that a negative condition may be implemented may be a material consideration where there is a good planning reason. Dismisses the claim that the aim of the policy of the SoS is to avoid a build up of old, unimplemented planning permissions and that consequently planning authorities can only refuse to impose a 'Grampian' condition where even the imposition of other planning conditions would fail to prevent adverse planning consequences due to the unlikelihood of its fulfilment.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63463 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 110621-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Considers the use of pre-conditions in the planning process in the light of "Grampian Regional Council v City of Aberdeen DC" (1983), "British Railways Board v SoS Environment" (1994)(ABS50018), DoE Circular 11/95, "Millington v SoS Environment and Shrewsbury and Atcham BC" (1999) and "Merritt v SoS Environment and Mendip DC" (2000) and describes the current state of the law as set out in these cases. Observes that it is not invalid to impose a negative condition even where there is no reasonable prospect of it being fulfilled within the time-limit of the permission, and that the fact that it is unlikely that a negative condition may be implemented may be a material consideration where there is a good planning reason. Dismisses the claim that the aim of the policy of the SoS is to avoid a build up of old, unimplemented planning permissions and that consequently planning authorities can only refuse to impose a 'Grampian' condition where even the imposition of other planning conditions would fail to prevent adverse planning consequences due to the unlikelihood of its fulfilment.