Applications for a site in two authority areas

An application two local authority areas problem has one answer that surprises people: there is no joint application and no lead authority. Each local planning authority determines the application for the land within its own area, so a site straddling a boundary needs an application to each, and the scheme cannot be built until both have granted permission. The work is in keeping the two determinations identical, because two authorities that agree on the principle can still impose conditions that contradict each other.

Who determines a cross boundary site

The Development Management Procedure Order requires an application to be made to the authority for the area in which the land is situated. Where the land sits in two areas, two applications are needed, and each authority decides the part within its jurisdiction.

The same logic applies with sharper effect where one of the authorities is a National Park authority or a development corporation, because those bodies are the local planning authority for their area and bring their own development plan with them.

Boundaries are not always where people assume. Check the authority boundary against the title plan and against the published administrative boundary dataset before you decide this is a cross boundary site at all, because a strip of verge or a watercourse in the wrong ownership is a common cause of unnecessary duplication.

Where only a sliver falls across the line, consider whether the red line can be drawn to exclude it. A scheme that does not need the second application is almost always the better scheme.

Making parallel applications

The practice that works is a mirrored pair of applications, each describing the whole development and each identifying the part of the site within that authority's area.

• Identical description of development, word for word, on both applications.
• Identical drawing numbers and revisions, with the authority boundary shown on the site plan.
• The whole site edged red on both, with the part in the other authority's area clearly annotated.
• A covering letter on each that names the other application, gives its reference once known, and explains the relationship.
• The same supporting documents, including the Planning Statement, submitted to both.

Fees are the item to settle before you submit. The fees regulations contain provisions dealing with development that straddles more than one area, so ask both authorities in writing how the fee should be calculated and apportioned rather than paying two full fees and arguing afterwards. While you are at it, check whether any fee exemption or reduction applies.

Keeping the two determinations aligned

Divergence creeps in through timing and through consultees, not through disagreement on principle.

Joint pre-application engagement is worth paying for twice here. Officers from both authorities in the same meeting will surface the policy differences you would otherwise discover at week ten, and the minute of that meeting becomes the reference document for both applications. Getting hold of the consultee responses on both files early matters too, and our note on getting consultee responses and the officer's case file sets out how.

Different local lists and validation requirements

Each authority publishes its own local validation list, and they will not match. One may require a daylight and sunlight assessment at a lower threshold than the other. One may insist on an arboricultural report for any tree within 15 metres of the works.

The simplest approach is to submit the union of the two lists to both authorities. It costs a little more in documents and it removes the risk of one application sitting invalid while the other runs.

Two development plans also means two sets of policies to address. The planning case has to engage with each authority's adopted plan on its own terms, which in practice means a common document with a separate policy compliance section for each area rather than two entirely different statements.

Conflicting conditions and how to avoid them

This is where cross boundary schemes come unstuck after permission.

An authority can impose conditions relating to land within the applicant's control, including land in the other area, but enforcement is carried out by the authority for the area where the breach occurs. So a condition imposed by authority A over land in authority B's area is awkward to enforce and awkward to discharge.

The practical protections:

1. Offer both authorities a single draft conditions schedule, drafted so that each condition is capable of standing alone for the part of the site in that area.
2. Avoid conditions that require a scheme covering the whole site to be approved by one authority alone, unless both agree in writing which authority discharges it.
3. Where a condition must cover the whole site, such as a construction management plan, propose wording that requires approval by both authorities and name them.
4. Keep triggers consistent. A pre-occupation trigger in one permission and a pre-start trigger in the other will stop the job.
5. Check the two decision notices against each other on the day they arrive, and use a non-material amendment under section 96A to correct any mismatch in drawing numbers early.

Obligations across two authorities

Either a single deed with both authorities as parties, or two deeds. A single deed is tidier and slower, since it needs both legal teams to agree the same text.

Contributions have to be apportioned, and the basis should be explicit: by unit numbers in each area, by floorspace, or by the infrastructure each contribution funds. An obligation that simply splits a sum in half invites an argument when one authority spends its share and the other does not.

The levy works differently again. Each charging authority charges for the chargeable floorspace in its own area under its own charging schedule, so the liability is calculated twice and the rates may differ. Build that into the appraisal rather than discovering it at the liability notice stage. Where an obligation needs varying later, the process has to be run with both authorities, as our note on varying a section 106 agreement after permission explains.

Appeal strategy where only one refuses

A refusal by one authority and a permission from the other leaves you with a scheme you cannot implement.

The appeal lies against the refusal, and the permission from the other authority is a material consideration in it, often a persuasive one where both authorities assessed the same evidence. Point to it explicitly in the statement of case, with the officer report that recommended approval.

Watch the three year implementation period on the permission you hold. An appeal taking nine months, followed by discharge of conditions, can erode it, and a renewal is not always available on the same terms.

Where one authority has simply not determined the application, the non-determination appeal is available for that part alone, which our note on appealing non-determination, and whether to wait covers. Ask the Inspectorate to link the appeals where both are running, so one inspector hears the whole site.

Enter your postcode on PlanScope to see which reports a site spanning two authority areas is likely to need.

This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with both local planning authorities or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.