Appeal 3276122

The appeal is allowed and planning permission 20/00785/FUL for a two storey rear extension to provide 3no. one-bedroom flats at [site address] is varied by deleting Condition 3.

The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the appeal was submitted. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on this. My decision is made in the context of the revised Framework and I am satisfied that no interested party has been prejudiced by my approach.

[name] 2021 planning permission was granted for an extension providing 3 flats subject to a series of conditions. In doing so the Council imposed a condition stating that no planning permission is granted for the basement flat.

The main issue is whether Condition 3 is necessary and reasonable having regard to the satisfactory living conditions of occupants.

The appeal property comprises an extended detached building sub divided into flats located within a suburban area of Worcester.

The Council has raised concerns in relation to the basement flat on the basis that it does not benefit from planning permission and are unable to assess whether it provides reasonable living accommodation.

I acknowledge that the basement flat is shown on the plans. I also note that details of it may well have been provided as part of a previous application. However, the appellant’s Accommodation Schedule indicates that the flat is unauthorised. Moreover, the application form only refers to an extension to form 3 flats with no mention of the basement flat and which is reflected on the proposed plans. As such, based on the evidence before me, the basement flat did not form part of the development as submitted by the appellant.

Whether or not the basement flat is lawful as an independent residential unit, is not a matter for this appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The application and this appeal relate to the development applied for, and other mechanisms exist to regularise the basement of the property.

Paragraph 56 of the Framework advises planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other aspects.

As the basement flat did not form part of the development, as submitted by the appellant, and other mechanisms exist to regularise it I find that the condition is not necessary.

Consequently, the deletion of Condition 3 in full would not conflict with the requirements of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016).

The appellant’s concerns over the application process and communication post decision are not matters for me in this appeal.

The appellant has made reference to the previous appeal at the site. However, there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the basement flat formed part of the appeal proposals considered by the Inspector. In any event every appeal must be considered on its own merits, as I have done.

I have taken into consideration representations regarding noise and disturbance, highway safety, and waste.

Taking into account the advice of the Council’s Highway Officer and based on observations at my site visit, I am satisfied that the development would not prejudice highway safety.

The Council have not raised concerns in relation to the activities at the property and I have no substantive reason to disagree. As such, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not unduly harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers in respect of noise, disturbance or waste.

For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the planning permission is varied by deleting Condition 3.