Cross-boundary sites and applications to two councils
Each authority determines only the part of a cross-boundary site in its area. Here is how to keep two applications, two plans and two committees aligned.
A site that straddles a local authority boundary needs an application to each authority, and each one determines the part of the development within its own area. There is no single decision maker and no lead authority in England. That is the whole problem, and it means the practical work is coordination rather than planning: identical documents, matching descriptions, aligned committee dates and one legal agreement that both councils sign.
The failure mode is obvious and it happens. One council approves, the other refuses, and the scheme cannot be built because half of it has no permission.
Why the site cannot be dealt with once
Planning jurisdiction follows administrative boundaries. Each local planning authority determines applications for development in its area, and it has no power to grant permission for land outside it. So an application for a scheme crossing the line has to be made twice, with each authority deciding its own portion.
Both authorities are usually content for the submitted drawings to show the whole development, and they should be. An officer cannot assess the part in their area without seeing the rest of it. What differs is the red line description and the part each authority is being asked to permit.
Two other jurisdictional splits behave the same way. A site partly within a National Park is split between the National Park authority and the district. In two-tier areas, minerals and waste applications go to the county council while everything else goes to the district, so a scheme with a waste element can involve three authorities.
The two development plans problem
This is the substantive issue rather than the procedural one. Each part of the site is assessed against a different development plan, with different housing policies, different design guidance, different parking standards and often a different position on housing land supply.
The consequences are concrete. One authority may require a higher affordable housing percentage than the other on the same scheme. Parking standards may differ enough to change the layout. One authority may have a five year supply and the other may not, which changes how the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies to each half.
Deal with this head on rather than hoping nobody notices. A Planning Statement for a cross-boundary site should set out both policy frameworks, identify where they conflict, and explain how the scheme responds to each. Officers on both sides will read the other authority's section, and a statement that pretends the boundary does not exist reads badly in both offices.
Where the policies conflict outright, say which one you have designed to and why. A scheme built to the stricter standard on both sides is easier to defend than one that varies across an invisible line in the middle of a housing estate.
Getting the submissions aligned
Run the two applications as one exercise with two outputs.
- Agree a single description of development, with each authority's version identifying the part within its area.
- Submit identical drawings and identical technical reports to both, with the same revision numbers and dates.
- Check both validation lists, because local requirements differ, and prepare the union of the two.
- Ask both validation teams to confirm the fee position, because the fees regulations deal specifically with applications made to more than one authority and the total is not simply the fee doubled.
- Ask each case officer for the name of their counterpart and copy both into substantive correspondence.
- Track the two determination periods separately, because they will start on different dates.
Joint pre-application advice is worth paying for on a scheme of any scale. Getting both authorities in one meeting surfaces the policy conflicts early, and it establishes the working relationship that the later coordination depends on.
Where a scheme is significant, ask whether the two authorities will prepare a joint officer report or at least share drafts. Some will. It is not a legal requirement and it depends entirely on the individuals.
Consultees, and getting the same answer twice
Statutory consultees are consulted by each authority separately, which means the highway authority, the lead local flood authority and the water undertaker each receive two consultations on one scheme. Usually they respond consistently. Occasionally they do not, and an inconsistent consultee response on the same evidence is a problem you have to resolve rather than ignore.
Where the two authorities have different highway authorities, which happens on county boundaries, expect materially different standards on visibility, adoption and parking. That is a design constraint rather than an administrative irritation, and it needs resolving before the layout is fixed.
Ecology, flood risk and heritage evidence should cover the whole site in one document each, with a note explaining that it has been submitted to both authorities. Splitting a Flood Risk Assessment at the boundary produces two half-assessments that neither authority can rely on.
Committee dates and the risk of divergence
The realistic risk is that the two authorities reach different conclusions, and the most common cause is timing. One committee sits three weeks before the other, the first refuses, and the second takes that as a signal.
What reduces the risk is transparency. Ask both authorities early whether the applications will go to committee or be delegated, and whether they can be programmed for the same cycle. Where one is delegated and the other goes to committee, ask the delegated authority to hold its decision until the committee has sat, so that neither decision is taken in ignorance of the other.
If one authority refuses and the other approves, the appeal against the refusal proceeds in the ordinary way, and the extant permission from the other authority is a material consideration in it. Inspectors give real weight to the fact that an identical scheme has been found acceptable by a neighbouring authority applying similar national policy. It is not determinative, and it is a good starting point.
Understanding how each authority handles its own procedure helps, and the general technique for following a file is covered in registering and tracking a neighbouring application.
Obligations, the levy and conditions
One section 106 agreement with both councils as parties is the clean answer. Two separate agreements create the risk of inconsistent obligations and of one being completed while the other is not.
The agreement has to deal with which authority receives which contribution, and what happens if one permission is implemented and the other is not. A clause making each permission's obligations conditional on implementation of both is usually what everyone wants, and it needs drafting rather than assuming.
The levy is charged separately by each charging authority on the development in its area, at that authority's rates, so a site can carry two different rates for the same building type. Establish the apportionment early, because it affects the appraisal.
Conditions are the last trap. Two authorities drafting independently produce conditions that overlap, conflict or duplicate discharge requirements. Ask for the draft conditions from both before the decisions are issued, compare them side by side, and point out anything inconsistent. It is far easier than living with two incompatible construction management conditions across one site. The same drafting discipline matters wherever conditions are negotiated, as covered in temporary permissions and what happens when they expire.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.
Frequently asked questions
Can one council determine a whole cross-boundary site?
No. Each local planning authority determines applications for development in its own area and has no power to grant permission for land outside it. An application has to be made to each authority, with each deciding the part within its jurisdiction. Drawings should still show the whole scheme so officers can assess it in context.
Do I pay two full application fees?
Not necessarily. The fees regulations deal specifically with applications made to more than one authority for the same development, and the total is not simply the single fee doubled. Ask both validation teams to confirm the position in writing before paying, because getting it wrong delays validation on both sides.
What happens if one council approves and the other refuses?
The scheme cannot be built as submitted, because half of it has no permission. The appeal against the refusal proceeds in the ordinary way, and the extant permission granted by the neighbouring authority is a material consideration that inspectors give real weight to. It is persuasive rather than determinative.
Which development plan applies?
Both, to their respective parts of the site. Each half is assessed against its own authority's adopted plan, which may set different affordable housing requirements, parking standards and design policies. Where the two conflict, set out both frameworks in the supporting documents and explain which standard the scheme has been designed to.
How should the section 106 agreement be structured?
As a single agreement with both councils as parties, dealing with which authority receives which contribution and what happens if one permission is implemented and the other is not. Two separate agreements risk inconsistent obligations and one completing while the other does not, which leaves the scheme half-committed.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.