Appeal 3279318

The appeal is allowed and the approval [name]/21/00355/FUL, given on 16 June 2021, is varied by deleting condition No’s 16 and 17.

The approved development includes two conditions that remove Permitted Development (PD) rights. These relate to extensions and alterations to the new dwelling and curtilage buildings. The Council’s reasons given for these, on the decision notice, are the need to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring occupiers against the likely adverse effect of such development.

Consequently, the main issue is whether conditions 16 and 17 are reasonable and necessary in the interests of living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site is the side garden of an existing dwelling within a suburban area. The area has a diverse range of house types within a relatively close-knit pattern of development. [address] is on a gradual gradient. As a result, the ground floor of [address] is around one metre higher than the appeal site and plot of the existing dwelling. The approved dwelling is a semi-detached property that, at the time of my visit, appeared to be substantially complete. Its rear garden is similar in length, width and overall size to the majority of neighbouring properties. As a result, the dwelling and the space around it, have characteristics that are common with the local pattern of development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) at paragraph 56 states that conditions should only be imposed when they are necessary, relevant, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. More specifically, paragraph 54 states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear reason to do so. Planning Practice Guidance states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness.

The rear elevation, of the new dwelling, projects out to the rear by around two metres. This creates a small staggered rear building line with No 22. However, the side passageway forms a gap between these dwellings at ground floor. Due to this separation gap, and the kitchen/diner of No 22 being served by two windows, the impact of future PD development would be limited. This relationship would be similar to the common effect of PD extensions between semi-detached dwellings. As such, PD development in this context would have a negligible and acceptable effect on the neighbouring occupier’s access to daylight and sunlight.

Furthermore, due to the level change with No 24, the effect of any PD extensions or curtilage buildings close to this property, would also be limited. The site is not constrained to any greater extent than local existing development. As a result, considering the overall context of the site, there is no compelling reason to withhold PD rights.

Accordingly, I conclude that the imposed PD restrictions are neither reasonable nor necessary in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, removing the conditions would not conflict with policy 8 of the [name] (2016) or the Framework. These seek development that creates a high standard of amenity for users and to not result in unacceptable impacts.

As such, clear justification for imposing the condition, as required by the paragraph 54 of the Framework, has not been provided.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and the planning permission should be varied by the deletion of Conditions 16 and 17.