Appeal 3284433

The appeal is allowed and the outline planning permission Ref 2021/1024 for Demolition of [site address] and residential development of 3 no. dwellings (Outline with all matters reserved apart from means of access) at [site address] granted on 24 September 2021 by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council, is varied by deleting condition 9, and deleting condition 22 and substituting it for the following condition:

The number of dwellings hereby approved shall not exceed 3.

Outline planning permission has been granted for the demolition of [site address] and a residential development comprising 3 dwellings with matters of layout, scale, appearance, and landscaping reserved for future approval. It is confirmed in the planning officer report and in both main parties’ statements of case that the drawings that formed a part of this application were indicative. I have therefore considered them to be an illustration of how the proposal might be developed.

The appeal seeks permission to carry out the development without complying with conditions 9 and 22. These conditions removed permitted development rights for all extensions and alterations, and restrict the height and the number of the dwellings on the site respectively.

The main issues are therefore whether the conditions are necessary and reasonable, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy.

Paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should only be imposed when they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

More specifically, paragraph 54 of the 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 (PPG)1 also advises that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity.

The submitted plans are indicative, and the current outline permission relates to access only with matters such as scale, appearance and layout to be reserved for future consideration. As such, there are no fixed parameters or details before me in these respects.

Given the lack of detail at this stage I am unable to be certain that the removal of permitted development rights is necessary. Furthermore, little justification for imposing this condition, as required by the policy set out in the Framework, has been provided by the Council in its statement of case.

As matters associated with scale, appearance and layout have yet to be determined, a condition restricting permitted development rights at outline stage is therefore premature. As such, condition 9 is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the of area and the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to outlook, light and privacy. I shall therefore delete this condition.

Restricting the number of dwellings to a maximum of 3, as per condition 22, is necessary to define the extent of the permission to be granted pursuant to the description of development. However, and as previously noted, layout, scale and appearance are matters that have been reserved for future approval.

Whilst the Council has referred me to the recommended external spacing standards set out in its Supplementary Planning Document: Designing New Housing Development 2012 (SPD), it is unknown whether the plots and the positions and orientation of the proposed dwellings will remain as shown in the indicative plans, when the details of future reserved matters applications are submitted. The heights of the dwellings and the positions of any window 1 Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-[phone] openings and the subsequent effect that these may have on the residents of neighbouring properties’ levels of privacy, light and outlook should therefore be considered and controlled by the Council at the relevant reserved matters stage/s.

In light of the above, condition 22 in its current form, is also not reasonable or necessary at this stage. As such it is required to be removed and replaced by a condition that solely refers to the numbers of dwellings approved.

Therefore, deleting condition 9 and removing and replacing condition 22 would not, in my view, conflict with Policies D1 and GD1 of the Barnsley Local Plan 2019, or advice contained in the SPD. Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure high quality design and to safeguard the living conditions and residential amenity of existing and future residents.

The Council has drawn my attention to a planning application for 5 dwellings on the site (Ref: 2021/1472) that they have determined since the submission of this appeal. [name] am aware of their reasons for refusing this application, it has had no bearing on the outcome of this appeal as I have determined it on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence before me.

In reaching my findings I have also had regard to a previous appeal on this site (Ref: APP/R4408/W/20/3253900) and the Inspector’s views on the local character of the area. Nonetheless, there is not anything within that appeal case which would lead me to reach a different decision.

I therefore find that the disputed conditions are not reasonable or necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the residents of neighbouring properties. I shall therefore allow the appeal and vary the original permission by deleting condition 9 and deleting and replacing condition 22 with one that refers to the number of dwellings approved only.