tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post989041460141560047..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: CONDITIONS PRECEDENT – an important developmentMartin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-40432655813899088432011-10-26T12:14:13.111+01:002011-10-26T12:14:13.111+01:00Thanks for the prompt response, Martin.
I underst...Thanks for the prompt response, Martin.<br /><br />I understand what you're saying (just! - the whole conditions precedent saga makes my head spin at times), and I appreciate that a definitive (if not necessarilly clear) answer to my question would only be forthcoming if the case was the subject of a legal challenge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-90835184567914159782011-10-26T10:12:17.161+01:002011-10-26T10:12:17.161+01:00The approach which I would advocate is to take a ‘...The approach which I would advocate is to take a ‘holistic’ view of the planning permission read together with all of its conditions, and then to consider both the purpose and effect of the conditions to see if they go to the heart of the permission (irrespective of whether or not they are prohibitive either in their wording or their effect). This does perhaps chime in with the words of Woolf LJ in <i>Whitley</i>, when he said that “it is only necessary to ask the single question: - Is the development (or are the operations which have taken place) permitted by the planning permission read together with its conditions?”. I also recall a judgment of Jeremy Sullivan (?) to the effect that conditions should not be construed in isolation but should be read together with each other. I can’t remember the reference at the moment.<br /><br />As I proposed in a lecture I gave to the Planning Inspectorate at a conference a couple of years ago, the question in relation to the issue of lawful implementation or commencement ought perhaps to be – ‘Is development in breach of the condition or conditions in question so different, in the form and manner in which it has been carried out, from what was authorised (assuming proper compliance with that condition or those conditions) that it is not within the scope of the planning permission?’ This necessarily involves consideration not only of the condition(s) itself/themselves in the context of the permission as a whole, but also the nature and consequences of the breach. It is perhaps in this way that one might best be able to determine whether the condition(s) (and also the breach) “go to the heart of the permission”.<br /><br />See also my later post - "Conditions precedent - a further thought"Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-34857358469674022312011-10-25T20:45:14.458+01:002011-10-25T20:45:14.458+01:00I know of a case where of 11 pre-commencement cond...I know of a case where of 11 pre-commencement conditions, 2 were complied with, and the development was then implemented (by an act of demolition). The original 3 year time period has sailed by and the remaining 9 pre-commencement conditions still haven't been complied with. Previously, only two of these would have been clearly prohibitive, but this judgement possibly means all 9 are prohibitive.<br /><br />However, with one possible exception, none of the 9 relevant conditions could really be said to go to the heart of the permission, at least not individually. I had wondered whether it was possible for several conditions to collectively go to the heart of a permission but, noting your earlier blogs on this issue, the point seemed moot.<br /><br />Or is it? Would it be a contrivance to say that individual conditions may not go to the heart of a permission, but collectively they could (or must do)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com