Planning conditions - test of precision

I have come across a number of cases recently where the planning authority has imposed a condition on a planning permission requiring "the carrying out of all the mitigation measures contained in the [    ]" The mitigation measures might be in the environmental statement or transport assessment or wherever. I always have a problem with those conditions - because can they really be said to be precise? It may be that the mitigation measures are clearly stated (in which case, can they not be lifted into conditions in any event) but in an ES, there could be many mitigations proposed - or raised but discounted. Can it be right that a third party must root around in the planning application to work out what the developer must do to comply? I'd be very interested in readers' thoughts on this.

Comments

[Mr Ashley Bowes]

Hi, I am not aware of any authority on this point; however, I have seen a number of 106 agreements and conditions making references to the implementation of a Travel Plan or some other document, and as such, it can be said to have been incorporated by reference. I would have thought however, that a unilateral undertaking is by far the best route to secure mitigation arising out of a screening opinion or EIA; rather than a condition.

Directly answering your point, a condition that mandated the 'carrying out of all measures stipulated in x document' would appear fairly clear; and is merely a device to avoid a cumbersome DN. The test for uncertainty/imprecision is, from memory a high one, and reference to some other document (provided it is equally open to public examination) would not in my view, automatically render it void for imprecision.

[beverley firth]

My problem with that kind of condition is that it requires the reader to go through what is potentially a very significant document in order to work out what is to be done. That cannot be right in my view.