Planning consultancyBacked by the UK's leading planning resource

Need planning help?

Applications, appeals, permitted development, enforcement and planning strategy across England

Get planning advice →

Finding Planning Geek useful?
Buy Ian a coffee to say thanks

Planning Geek on YouTube

Planning Geek on YouTube

Planning explanations, updates and practical guidance in video form

Watch on YouTube →

British Railways Board v Secretary of State for the Environment and Others [1993] 3 PLR 125

 

The point in plain English: A negative condition is not automatically unlawful just because the applicant cannot itself guarantee that the event required by the condition will happen.

 

What the House of Lords decided

 

British Rail sought housing permission at the former Feltham marshalling yard. Access depended on land owned by Hounslow, which opposed the scheme. The Secretary of State treated a negative condition as unavailable because there was no reasonable prospect of the necessary access works being achieved within the life of the permission.

The House of Lords held that this was a misdirection. Grampian had not created an absolute rule that a negative condition is invalid whenever fulfilment looks unlikely. The question is whether the condition is otherwise lawful and reasonable in the circumstances. The practical prospects of implementation can still be relevant, but they are not an automatic jurisdictional bar.

 

Why it still matters

 

The case remains a central authority on negative or ‘Grampian’ conditions. See Planning Geek’s guide to planning conditions.

Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.

Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.

Affected by this case, or spotted something we should check? Report an issue with this page