Back
Legal

Section 106 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows any person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority to enter into a planning obligation with that authority requiring, inter alia, specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on or under or over the land. Section 106(3) goes on to render the planning obligation enforceable by the authority against the person entering into it and against his successors in title. Care, however, needs to be taken in the drafting of any planning obligation. In particular, it is vital to ensure that the planning obligation binds the relevant land.


In PNH (Properties) Limited v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2012] EWHC 1998 (Admin) the claimant applied under section 288 of the 1990 Act to quash the decision of an inspector on appeal to refuse planning permission for two houses. The appeal site comprised 0.19 hectares of land forming part of a larger woodland area. The claimant had submitted a planning application in unilateral form, the apparent purpose of which was to deliver and implement a woodland management plan in respect the area of woodland lying outside the appeal site. This was described in the planning obligations as “the blue land” while the appeal site was described as “the red land”.


The inspector had considered the planning obligation, but had concluded that the effectiveness and enforceability of the planning obligation was such that he should give little weight to it. The claimant argued that the inspector had erred in his understanding of the planning obligation, and consequently failed to take into account a material consideration, namely the benefits of a woodland management plan.


The court rejected this argument. The planning obligation was expressed only to bind the red land. It required activities to be carried out on the blue land. In the event that the blue land was sold into separate ownership, the planning obligation would not apply to it. The local planning authority would not be able to enforce the planning obligation against the successor in title to the blue land, because the planning obligation was not expressed to bind or be applicable to it. Consequently, the inspector was correct in concluding that there was no guarantee that the measures laid down in the planning obligation would be accomplished.



John Martin

Up next…