Appeal 3298327

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/21/02690/HOUS for proposed erection of a single storey orangery to the rear of the property, at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , granted on 16 February [address] Authority, is varied by deleting condition 3.

Planning permission was granted for a single storey extension, referred to as an orangery, to the rear of the property. This included a condition preventing implementation of that permission in combination with extensions and alterations permitted on 14 October 2019 (ref SDNP/19/03251/HOUS). The Authority considers the condition to be necessary to avoid partial or joint implementation of both permissions, which they consider could result in a visually inappropriate form of development. The appellant, however, objects to the condition as they consider it to be unnecessary, not relevant to the rear extension as permitted, and not reasonable.

The main issue, therefore, is whether the condition is reasonable, necessary and relevant to the proposed development, having regard to the effect of the permitted developments on the character and appearance of the dwelling.

The 2019 planning permission encompassed several elements, including a two storey front extension, roof alterations and a single storey extension to the rear, together with several alterations to fenestration and external detailing. The 2022 planning permission was limited to a single storey rear extension, without proposing other additions and alterations.

The alternative single storey extensions permitted in 2019 and 2022 would be in similar positions at the rear. Although their precise siting differs, their proposed footprints would overlap to a significant degree. Any alternative construction which combined elements of both designs would conflict with conditions requiring compliance with the respective approved plans, which the Authority imposed on both planning permissions. On that basis, only one of the two single storey rear extensions could feasibly be implemented and there is no uncertainty as to what that would look like. Therefore, in relation to the single storey rear extensions which are the main focus of the Council’s concern, the disputed condition is not necessary.

No clear evidence has been presented that implementation of the 2022 extension in combination with the other, physically discrete elements of the 2019 planning permission would be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling. I note that the 2022 extension would have a larger floor area than the equivalent permitted in 2019. However, I have not been made aware of any policies which restrict the cumulative scale of residential extensions in principle. While the approved two storey front extension and rear roof alterations are not shown on the 2022 approved plans, the approved plans accurately depict what was applied for at that time.

It is not the function of this appeal to determine whether the works undertaken to date amounted to implementation of the 2019 planning permission. It was furthermore not unreasonable for the Council to take at face value the expressed intention not to proceed with the 2019 permission. However, it remains the case that the disputed condition would restrict implementation of discrete extensions and alterations which have been judged by the Authority to be acceptable on their own merits. On that basis, it is not reasonable. Furthermore, the condition goes beyond what is relevant to the development permitted, since it would restrict other approved development without adequate justification.

I conclude that the disputed condition is not necessary or reasonable. It is also not wholly relevant to the development permitted. As such, it does not comply with the relevant tests for imposing planning conditions, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

For the reasons given above, I allow the appeal and vary the original permission by deleting the disputed condition.