Funny how things work out in planning is it not? Only this morning, I was consulting circular 11/95 on planning conditions - then I returned just now from a meeting to find the circular (bar the annexed model conditions) has been swept away during the day by the new kid on the block, National Planning Practice Guidance.

It's all essential reading, but amongst other aspects, we now have CLG's policy position on the use of negatively worded conditions to secure future s.106 obligations. Although the starting point on this in NPPG is that the practice is unlikely to be appropriate in the majority of cases, there are applications where it will be -   "in the case of more complex and strategically important development where there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development would otherwise be at serious risk".

So this practice, (followed already in a number of cases but viewed with suspicion in others) is now confirmed. The "6 tests" will need to be met and there will need to be clarity on what the future s.106 will have to cover.

Also relevant is the following extract from NPPG, " where the six tests will be met, it may be possible (to) use a negatively worded condition to prohibit development authorised by the planning permission until a specified action has been taken (for example, the entering into of a planning obligation requiring the payment of a financial contribution towards the provision of supporting infrastructure).

This is likely to be of real value in many large scale sites where land assembly or collaboration arrangements threaten the bringing forward of development.