Appeal 3274347

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner above from the Council’s Decision Notice as it is far more concise than the appellants description. I am satisfied that neither party is prejudiced by that action.

Planning permission has been granted for the erection of a porch on the east facing wall, covering an entrance door to the kitchen. The appellant is seeking to remove condition 3 from the approval. In summary, this requires changes to the design of the porch by reducing the amount of glazing on the three external sides of the porch. Therefore, the main issue in this appeal is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable.

Paragraph 56 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.

The Environment Act 1995 sets out the statutory purposes of National Parks, including to conserve and enhance their natural beauty. In carrying out these purposes, national parks also have a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the national park. The Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks.

With regard to the condition in question, the Council have been extremely prescriptive in emphasising what is required in the condition, and why it is required to protect the character of the property and the qualities of the National Park.

The existing property is stone built, and glazing is kept to a minimum, which is an overarching design feature of the property. The design outlined in the approval is dominated by glazing, at the expense of stone construction, and would look like an alien feature on a property of such traditional construction and design.

I have noted the comments of the appellant with regard to the amount of natural light getting into the property, but I agree with the Council in respect of the need to protect the character of the property, and the quality of the National Park, with a more traditional design than proposed by the appellant.

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. I find that the condition is fair, reasonable and necessary for the planning approval.

Based on the above, I consider that Condition 3 is reasonable and necessary in its current form in order to protect the character of the dwelling and the quality of the National Park. It is drafted in a precise manner and is enforceable, reasonably imposed and consistent in respect of guidance in the Framework.

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