The six tests for planning conditions
Every planning condition has to be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development, enforceable, precise and reasonable. Here is how each test bites and how to challenge a condition that fails.
The six tests for planning conditions come from the Planning Practice Guidance on the use of planning conditions, and they apply to every condition on every permission. A condition must be necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other respects. Fail any one of the six and the condition should not be imposed. Fail it after the event and the condition is vulnerable on appeal or, in the worst case, unenforceable while the permission stands.
Officers know the list. What varies is how closely they apply it when a consultee sends over a form of words at the end of the consultation period.
Where the six tests come from
The power to impose conditions sits in section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows permission to be granted subject to such conditions as the authority thinks fit, and in section 72 for conditions on the use of land. Section 70(1)(a) is wide on its face. The limits are judicial.
The House of Lords in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] set out three requirements: a condition must be imposed for a planning purpose and not an ulterior one, must fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development, and must not be so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed it. The Planning Practice Guidance expands those three into the six tests and adds the drafting discipline around them.
Section 100ZA of the 1990 Act, inserted by the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017, adds a procedural layer for pre-commencement conditions. The authority must seek the applicant's written agreement before imposing one, subject to the notice procedure in the associated regulations. Refusal to agree does not force the authority to grant without the condition, but it does force the conversation to happen before the decision notice is issued rather than after.
Necessary and relevant to planning
Necessary means the authority would have to refuse permission without it. That is the framing the guidance uses, and it disposes of most of the conditions that appear on decision notices out of habit.
A condition repeating a requirement already imposed by other legislation is not necessary. Building Regulations cover structural adequacy, fire separation and thermal performance, so a condition requiring compliance with Approved Document B adds nothing. Nor does a condition requiring the developer to obtain a licence that the law already requires. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 does its own work.
Relevant to planning means the condition must serve a planning purpose rather than a private or commercial one. Conditions controlling who occupies a building for reasons unconnected with planning fail here, as do conditions imposed to extract a benefit that should have been dealt with through a section 106 obligation.
The distinction matters practically. Where a case officer proposes a condition that is really an obligation in disguise, say so during determination. Untangling it after the decision costs a section 73 application and eight more weeks. Details of the resulting permission and its conditions go onto the statutory planning register, which is where any future purchaser or lender will find them.
Relevant to the development permitted
A condition must relate to the development being permitted, not to other land or other activity. Permission for a single dwelling cannot be conditioned to require works to an unrelated building elsewhere on the applicant's holding.
Grampian conditions sit at the edge of this test and pass it. A negatively worded condition preventing occupation until an off-site highway improvement is complete relates to the development, because the development cannot acceptably operate without it. What it must not do is require the applicant to do something on land they cannot control, in positive terms, with no realistic prospect of delivery.
The guidance is clear that a negatively worded condition with no reasonable prospect of being satisfied within the life of the permission should not be imposed. Test that honestly before you accept one. A condition tied to an agreement the highway authority has already refused to enter into is not a solution.
Enforceable and precise
Enforceable means the authority could, in practice, tell whether the condition has been breached and take action. Precise means the applicant can read the condition and know exactly what is required.
Three drafting habits break both tests at once:
- Conditions using words like appropriate, suitable, adequate or satisfactory with no benchmark. Satisfactory to whom, measured how.
- Conditions requiring something to be maintained in perpetuity without saying what maintained means or who checks.
- Conditions referring to a document by title only, with no date, revision or reference number, so nobody can later prove which version was approved.
The cure is mundane. Name the standard, name the document with its revision, and set the trigger point. A condition requiring a scheme of acoustic mitigation to achieve internal levels in accordance with BS 8233:2014 is enforceable. One requiring acceptable internal noise levels is not.
Where plans are amended during determination and the change is material, a condition is the wrong tool. That is a case for re-consultation on the amended plans, not for a condition papering over the difference.
Reasonable in all other respects
The sixth test catches conditions that pass the other five and are still unfair or unworkable. A condition that makes the permitted scheme undeliverable, or that requires expenditure out of all proportion to the harm being addressed, fails here.
So does a condition that removes the whole commercial basis of the permission. Restricting the opening hours of a drive-through restaurant to five hours a day is capable of being unreasonable in this sense, even though hours conditions in general are perfectly normal.
The test also catches conditions requiring work to be done before a use that has already lawfully begun, and conditions with a compliance period so short that breach is inevitable on the day the notice is issued.
Conditions that fail the tests
Some recurring examples, and what to say about them:
| Condition | Test it fails | Better approach |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance with Building Regulations | Necessary | Delete, the duty exists anyway |
| Materials to be agreed, no trigger point | Precise, enforceable | Add a trigger and a submission date |
| Development to be carried out in accordance with recognised good practice | Precise | Name the standard and edition |
| Landscaping to be retained in perpetuity | Enforceable | Set a replacement period, five years is common |
| A financial contribution required by condition | Relevant to planning | Use a section 106 obligation |
| Works on third-party land, positively worded | Reasonable | Reword negatively as a Grampian condition |
Not every unnecessary condition is worth fighting. A harmless condition that costs nothing to discharge can be accepted to get the decision out. The ones to challenge are those with a cost, a delay or an ongoing liability attached.
Challenging a condition without losing the permission
Three routes exist, and they behave differently.
An application under section 73 of the 1990 Act seeks permission for the development without complying with a condition, and results in a new permission if granted. The original permission survives either way, so a refusal leaves you where you started. Section 73 cannot be used to alter the description of development itself, following the Court of Appeal in Finney v Welsh Ministers [2019], so check whether the condition you want to change is in truth part of the operative description.
An application under section 96A seeks a non-material amendment. It is quick and low cost, and it is limited to changes the authority judges non-material in the context of the permission as a whole.
An appeal under section 78 against the condition alone puts the whole permission back in play in some circumstances, so take advice before using it on a permission you are content with otherwise. The six-month deadline for a non-householder appeal runs from the date of the decision notice, and the Planning Inspectorate will not extend it.
Whichever route you use, the case for the change belongs in the supporting statement. Setting out which of the six tests the condition fails, with the guidance wording quoted, is more persuasive than arguing inconvenience. Drafting that argument as part of a planning statement keeps it in front of the case officer from the start, and the other supporting documents a section 73 application needs will depend on what the condition was controlling.
This is general guidance, not legal advice. Check the position with your local planning authority 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.
Frequently asked questions
Where are the six tests for planning conditions set out?
They appear in the Planning Practice Guidance chapter on the use of planning conditions. The underlying legal limits come from section 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and from the three requirements set out by the House of Lords in Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment in 1981.
Can a council impose a pre-commencement condition without my agreement?
Section 100ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires the authority to seek the applicant's written agreement to a pre-commencement condition first, following the notice procedure in the associated regulations. Withholding agreement does not oblige the authority to grant permission without the condition, but it forces the discussion before the decision notice is issued.
What is a Grampian condition and does it pass the tests?
A Grampian condition is negatively worded and prevents development, or occupation, until something happens, often off-site. It passes the relevance test because the development cannot operate acceptably without that work. It fails if there is no reasonable prospect of the requirement being met within the life of the permission.
Should I use section 73 or section 96A to change a condition?
Section 73 grants a fresh permission without compliance with the condition, and the original permission survives a refusal. Section 96A covers non-material amendments and is faster and costs less. Section 73 cannot change the description of development itself, so check whether the wording you want altered forms part of that description.
Is a condition requiring compliance with Building Regulations valid?
It fails the necessity test. The duty to comply with the Building Regulations exists independently of the planning permission, so the condition adds nothing and the authority would not have refused permission without it. The same reasoning applies to conditions repeating requirements under wildlife, licensing or environmental permitting legislation.
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.