Appeal 3268387

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application included drawings showing a proposed single storey extension on the ground floor of the appeal dwelling’s north elevation. However, I have not specifically assessed this in my determination of the appeal, as the issue in dispute in this case relates to the variation and removal of conditions.

The main issue is whether condition Nos 1 and 3 are necessary and reasonable, having regard to local policy in respect of extensions to dwellings.

Policy DP36 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan (adopted 2019) (the Local Plan) sets out the circumstances where extensions to existing dwellings will be permitted. In this case, extensions to dwellings should not result in a floorspace increase to the existing dwelling1 by more than 30%. The justification to the policy explains that proposals that incrementally extend dwellings in a nationally designated landscape can affect the locally distinctive character of the built environment. In addition, extensions can result in an imbalance in the range and mix of housing stock that is available, and a disproportionate number of larger dwellings. Where necessary the Authority will use appropriate planning conditions to ensure that permitted extensions are not used to undermine the aims of the policy.

The approved scheme included works and additions to the dwelling that will result in a 29% increase in floorspace which was in accordance with Policy DP36. Yet any further enlargement of the property would likely result in the 30% limit set by the policy being exceeded. Accordingly, the Authority thought it necessary to impose conditions (Nos 1 and 3) which restrict any further extensions to the dwelling that could be carried out under permitted development (PD) rights. From my assessment of those PD rights removed, works might include large side and rear additions that alter the appearance of the dwelling and significantly increase its overall scale and mass, as well as the 30% limit referred to in the policy.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that conditions restricting the future use of PD rights or changes of use may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. The scope of such conditions needs to be precisely defined, by reference to the relevant provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO), so that it is clear exactly which rights have been limited or withdrawn.

The appellant considers that the imposition of conditions 1 and 3 are not reasonable and necessary in the context of the Framework and the PPG. However, the circumstances of this case relate to a nationally important landscape where there has been a consistent application of policy that restricts the cumulative expansion of dwellings so as to maintain consistency in built form and development. Allowing the appeal would weaken the application of Policy DP36 to the detriment of the intrinsic character of the National Park. Moreover, the Authority would not be able to regulate the scale of future alterations that may unacceptably alter the range and mix of housing stock that is available.

This approach of limiting the scope of extensions to existing dwellings was endorsed by the Inspectors who examined the current Local Plan. Accordingly, 1 Existing dwelling means the dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1982, or as the dwelling was originally built or legally established, if the residential use post-dates 1 July 1982. I find that there is a clear justification for removing permitted development rights.

I acknowledge that the extension the appellant wishes to build is of modest proportion and may result in rationalising space internally, even so there would be nothing preventing further expansion of the dwelling with other additions permitted by the relevant PD rights, should I allow this appeal. This could result in further incremental and/or unsympathetic extending of the dwelling to the detriment of the area’s character and the local housing stock.

Therefore, conditions 1 and 3 are necessary and reasonable, having regard to the legitimate purposes of protecting the locally distinctive character and maintaining a balanced range and mix of housing within the New Forest National Park, as sought by Local Plan Policy DP36.

The appellant considers that a further planning application to enlarge the dwelling would be refused by the Authority. I have no firm indication that this would be the case, nonetheless, this is a matter outside of the appeal and should be pursued separately by the appellant.

The appeal site is located within the Forest Central South Conservation Area (CA). There are no specific objections raised by the Authority with respect to the proposal’s effect on the significance of this CA. Given that this appeal relates to whether planning conditions are reasonable and necessary I have no reason to take a different view.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

The application is accompanied by plans which show an extension the appellants are hoping to build. However, since the application is to remove and vary conditions on a previous planning permission, my consideration of this appeal must be made on that basis.

The main issue is whether the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary, having regard to development plan policy on the extension of dwellings in the New Forest National Park (the National Park).

Policy DP36 of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 (the Local Plan) sets out the approach of the National Park Authority towards the extension of dwellings. The policy places special restrictions on the extension of small dwellings but in all other cases outside the [name] (which includes the appeal property) it stipulates that the extension must not increase the floorspace of the existing dwelling1 by more than 30% unless exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated whereby a larger extension would meet the genuine family needs of an occupier who works in the immediate locality.

Paragraph 7.79 of the Local Plan explains that the rationale for the policy is twofold; firstly, to protect the locally distinctive character of the New Forest and secondly, to prevent an imbalance in the range and mix of housing stock available. The latter is a cumulative impact which can occur over time through proposals to incrementally extend dwellings. The supporting text goes on to state that where necessary the Authority will use appropriate planning conditions to ensure that permitted extensions are not used in conjunction with national permitted development rights to undermine the aims of Policy DP36.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. The Planning Practice Guidance further advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. However, there are valid reasons in the National Park to remove permitted development rights, to support the policy aims. This scenario is anticipated within the Local Plan, which has been examined and found to meet the criteria for soundness.

The planning permission authorised a series of extensions and alterations which together would result in a 29% increase in floorspace at the dwelling. The purpose of varying condition no.1 and removing condition no.3 would be to enable the construction of an extension under permitted development rights. The submitted plans illustrate what the appellants would like to build. They show a single storey extension with a footprint of 2.78m by 6.44m (measured 1 Defined within Paragraph 7.82 of the Local Plan to mean the dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1982, or as the dwelling was originally built or legally established, if the residential use post-dates 1 July 1982. externally). This would provide 16.1m2 of additional floorspace, bringing the total floorspace to 156.8m2.

I am satisfied that the appellants’ proposed extension would not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the National Park. However, it would breach the 30% floorspace threshold. The appellants argue that the dwelling would remain a modest property. However, its expansion beyond the policy threshold would undermine the objectives of the development plan. I am mindful that, although the appellants have a particular project in mind, the proposal would allow for a larger single storey rear extension than shown on the plans.

The Local Plan includes a clear policy to guide decisions for extensions to dwellings; this is justified and ensures fair and consistent decision-making. The conflict with the aims of Policy DP36, arising from the proposed variation and removal of conditions, attracts significant weight. [name] have sympathy with the appellants’ desire to improve their home, this does not outweigh the conflict with the development plan. There is no suggestion that exceptional circumstances apply here, and I note that such circumstances would only permit extended dwellings with up to 120m2 of internal floorspace in any event.

I therefore conclude that conditions 1 and 3 are reasonable and necessary, having regard to the legitimate purpose of maintaining a balanced range and mix of housing within the New Forest National Park, in line with the provisions of Local Plan Policy DP36. It would always be open for the appellants to make a planning application for an extension to the property, but that is not a matter for my consideration under the appeal.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.