Appeal 3272006

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission had previously been granted for the demolition of the existing property and the erection of a new dwelling. The appellants seek permission to carry out the development without complying with Conditions 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7. In summary, these require a sample panel of stonework to be made available on-site during construction, samples of the stone and roof tiles to be submitted and approved, architectural details to be submitted and a contamination report to be submitted and approved if any contamination is found during development. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the conditions are reasonable and necessary.

Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that ‘Planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.’ The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) states that the 6 tests must all be satisfied each time a decision to grant planning permission subject to conditions is made.

In accordance with the PPG a key question in respect of whether a condition is necessary, is that it must not be imposed unless there is a definite planning reason for it, i.e. it is needed to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

Conditions 3, 4 and 5 relate to the provision of a sample board on site for the stone of the external walls of the development, and the supplying of samples for prior approval of the stone and roof tiles to be used. Those conditions are designed to control the materials of construction as it is likely that additional materials will be used as the existing bricks and tiles are unlikely to supply enough material to complete the building, through sizing, wastage etc. The sample board is required to ensure that correct methods of construction are used during building. All three conditions are used on a regular basis for planning applications that include construction and are fair, reasonable and necessary to ensure a planning application is completed in the interest of visual amenities.

Condition 6 relates to architectural detail and again are necessary in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and proper planning. Finer detail is often necessary during construction to ensure that the finished product is constructed in a manner that benefits the dwelling and ensures that the construction is done with quality materials and finishes for the finer points of detailing. The condition is fair, reasonable and necessary for the planning approval.

Condition 7 is a precautionary condition to ensure that in the unlikely event of any contamination being discovered that it is addressed correctly and in line with the relevant legislation before work continues. It is there as a precaution, and it is hoped that it will never be triggered, and work is completed without issue. The condition is fair, reasonable and necessary for projects involving new constructions, excavations etc.

The conditions may seem somewhat draconian to an appellant with limited resources and time, but they are necessary to ensure that the planning system works for all parties. Therefore, I find that all conditions are fair, reasonable and necessary to control the planning permission and ensure compliance with the planning application as approved.

For the reasons given, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.