Planning Conditions on Litter; are MCHLG Serious?

From Build back beter high streets issued today:

We are aware of public concern around the levels of litter outside fast food outlets. To address
these concerns, we will review planning practice guidance in relation to litter, to provide
further advice on how planning conditions can reasonably be applied to prevent and
clean up litter caused by the fast food outlets which are most likely to generate it.

Two problems

From Test Valley

Circular 11/95advises against the use of conditions where other legislation exists to
mitigate the harm of a proposed development. As such it is not reasonable to
attach a condition to a permission requiring the provision of litter bins in most

Council’s also cannot require, by planning condition, an applicant to do
something out of his control such as place a bin on land he or she does not
own. If the only location for a bin was on land outside of the control of the
applicant the authority could not reasonably impose a condition requiring the
applicant to provide a bin unless the land is under public ownership where
there is a reasonable prospect of the owner allowing a bin to be located on
their land.

There is other legislation. There used to be street litter control notices. These were replaced in 2014 by Community protection orders, which could be used for example to sanction businesses that allow customers to litter.

Littering notices were spectacularly useless. Are CPNs any better?

It is difficult to see how planning conditions can be effective. How could they be enforced, surely the environmental protection powers are better. What will PPG do except point out these other powers? Perhaps on putting up notices to use bins, I cant see what they could do?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s