The condition stipulated that no development should begin until a scheme had been submitted to and approved by the council to ensure that residents of the additional flat were unable to secure a parking permit. The appellant explained that he had attempted to enter into a planning obligation to comply with the terms of the condition, but the freeholder of the property had demanded a payment of £30,000 to be party to the agreement.
The appellant considered that he had effectively been held to ransom. He requested that the terms of the condition should be amended to preclude explicit or implicit reference to a planning obligation and instead simply state that occupation of the flat should be restricted to residents who did not hold a parking permit issued by the council.
The inspector noted the council's wish for a planning obligation because it was potentially more enforceable than a condition. However, he cited Circular 05/2005's advice that a condition is preferable where it complies with the policy tests in Circular 11/1995. He agreed that an appropriately worded condition would achieve the appellant's objective without the need for a planning obligation.
DCS Number 100-064-103
Inspector Paul Dobsen; Hearing