Planning conditionality A significant number of property transactions involve rights and obligations which are conditional on, or are triggered by, the grant of (a satisfactory) planning permission. See Precedents: • Contract for sale—freehold vacant possession conditional on planning • Call option—landowner—planning permission to be obtained by buyer—market value • Promotion agreement • Agreement for lease—developer landlord to carry out

This Practice Note answers frequently asked questions about making and determining planning applications in England and Wales, including validation, amendments to applications, decision-making by officers and committees, material considerations, reasons for decisions and issues arising before and after determination. For general guidance on planning applications, see: Planning applications—overview. Can someone apply for planning permission if they do not own the application site? Yes. An applicant does not need to own the land to which a planning application relates. Anyone can apply for planning permission for the development of land. However, the applicant must comply with the ownership notification and certification requirements. Broadly, notice must be given before submission of the application to other owners of the application site and agricultural tenants, and the appropriate ownership certificate must be completed and, in some cases, published. Failure to comply with those requirements can affect the validity of the application and, where permission is granted on the basis of an incorrect certificate, may expose the permission to challenge. For further information, see Practice Note: Applying for planning permission—procedure,

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. The planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2020 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2021. Judgment date Case Topic News Analysis Summary 23 December 2020 R (on the application of Day) v Shropshire Council [2020] EWCA Civ 1751 Appropriating land and overriding rights A trust of open land for the benefit of the public does not endure where a disposal of that land is made in breach of the rules about disposals (R (Day) v Shropshire Council) The Court of Appeal held that a statutory trust of open land ceased to have effect when the land to which it related was sold, even though that sale had been made in contravention of the statutory requirements as to giving notice and was thus unlawful—and where the local authority and purchaser had been unaware that the trust existed. This is likely to be highly relevant to matters involving land (usually owned

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2021 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2020 [Archived]. December 2021 Judgment date Case Summary 20 December 2021 R (on the application of Rights: Community: Action) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government [2021] EWCA Civ 1954 Planning conditions: The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court that a planning inspector was wrong to refuse to impose conditions on the grant of planning permission on the ground that they were unnecessary. Analysis to follow. 16 December 2021 R (on the application of Save Britain's Heritage) v City of London Corp (as local planning authority) [2021] EWHC 3561 (Admin) Planning applications and decisions: The Court of Appeal considered the correct approach to construing a planning permission (here, one which granted permission for the conversion of a dwelling to commercial ‘units’) in the context of whether the inspector who granted that planning permission on appeal against

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2022 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2021. December Judgment date Case Summary 21 December 2022 R (on the application of LW Zenith Ltd) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 3317 (Admin) Permitted development: The Planning Court had to consider whether, on grant of prior approval for a change of use from office to residential use under Class O of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) (England) Order 2015, SI 2015/596 (GPDO), it was possible to impose a condition requiring works to be completed under a separate planning permission for operational development. The court found that it was possible in the circumstances.See News Analysis: Condition requiring completion of operational development can be imposed on prior approval (Zenith v SSLHC)See: [2022] EWHC 3317 (Admin) 20 December 2022 R (on the application of Wells) v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council [2022] EWHC 3298 (Admin) Planning policy: The Planning

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2023 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2021 and Planning case tracker—2022. December 2023 Judgment date Case Summary 20 December 2023 R (on the application of Together Against Sizewell C Ltd) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero [2023] EWCA Civ 1517 Development consent orders: The Court of Appeal succinctly analysed two questions which often arise in the context of the appropriate assessment of projects under the Habitats Regulations. The first is whether the infrastructure required for a utilities connection which is necessary for the operation of a development could lawfully be considered a separate project. The court held that this was dependent on the facts and a matter for the decision maker’s judgment and concluded that the Secretary of State’s judgment that the supply of potable water was not part of the nuclear power station project for the purposes of appropriate assessment was lawful. The second issue was whether the Secretary of State

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2024 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2021, Planning case tracker—2022 and Planning case tracker—2023. December 2024 Judgment date Case Summary 20 December 2024 Jones v Wrexham County Borough Council [2024] EWCA Civ 1603 Planning policy: The Court of Appeal’s decision clarifies that in Wales, like in England, the adoption of a local development plan (LDP) recommended by an inspector for adoption is a discretionary decision of the democratically accountable planning authority. There is no obligation on the planning authority to adopt a plan recommended for adoption (with or without modifications) by an inspector. However, under section 65 or 71 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (PCPA 2004), the Welsh Minister may call-in or intervene on a draft LDP and determine its adoption. This includes circumstances where a planning authority has decided not to adopt an LDP under PCPA 2004, s 67 in accordance with the inspector’s recommendations. A call-in or intervention could

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2025 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also: Planning case tracker—2022, Planning case tracker—2023 and Planning case tracker—2024. December 2025 Judgment date Case Summary 8 December 2025 R (on the application of Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) v Secretary of State for Transport [2025] EWHC 3206 (Admin) Obtaining, amending and implementing planning permission: The High Court held that Finch does not require decision-makers to quantify every downstream climate effect. What matters is whether an effect is likely and capable of meaningful assessment on the available evidence and benchmarks. For aviation projects, it is lawful to assess outbound emissions against national carbon budgets and to treat inbound emissions separately where no recognised benchmark exists to contextualise them.See News Analysis: Court clarifies application of Finch to aviation emissions in dismissing challenge to airport expansion DCO (Luton and District Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise v SST). 3 December 2025 R (on the application of Halton Borough

The Planning case tracker is a list of key judgments from 2026 considered relevant to planning lawyers, with cases listed in reverse chronological order. See also Practice Notes: Planning case tracker—2022, Planning case tracker—2023, Planning case tracker—2024 and Planning case tracker—2025. August 2026 Judgment date Case Summary 11 August 2026 R (on the application of Herod Property Ltd) v Westminster City Council [2026] EWHC 2122 (Admin) Community infrastructure levy: The High Court held that a developer relying on the ‘zero CIL’ exception may lawfully decide not to submit a notice of chargeable development or commencement notice, but that the collecting authority is not bound by that assessment. The court held that liability crystallises on commencement, that later purchasers do not inherit or share a liability already fixed at that point, and that the collecting authority was entitled to determine liability on the information reasonably available to it. The judicial review was dismissed on all grounds.See News Analysis: Court rules on zero CIL exception for retained parts of in-use buildings (Herod Property v WCC). 6 August 2026 R

Conditions imposed on planning permissions to make otherwise unacceptable developments acceptable. Conditions can be used to restrict what can be done on land or require the developer to get specific approval for aspects of the development, before development can be commenced or occupied.

Contents of training materials These training materials contain slides and speaker notes to introduce trainees, junior lawyers, lawyers from other practice areas or clients to the basics of planning conditions, obligations and the community infrastructure levy (CIL). They cover: • the general power to impose planning conditions • modifying planning conditions • discharging planning conditions • breaches of planning condition • statutory tests and formalities for entering into planning obligations under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 • relationship

What are planning conditions? Planning conditions are imposed on the grant of planning permission to regulate development. They can enhance the quality of development or enable development proposals which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms to proceed, by mitigating or otherwise controlling the adverse effects of the development. Conditions can also be imposed in a local development order, mayoral development order or neighbourhood development order. However, legislation, case law and policy set limits on the use of conditions, as set out below. Powers to impose planning conditions The general powers for local planning authorities (LPAs) to impose conditions on the grant of planning permission are set out in sections 70 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), although statutory powers to impose conditions are also set out in TCPA 1990, ss 73, 73A, 96A and Sch 5. The Secretary of State (SoS) also has powers to impose conditions on appeal in TCPA 1990, ss 77, 79, 177 and Sch 6. TCPA 1990, s 70 provides that where an application is made