Appeal 3300971

The appeal is allowed and the approval Ref 22/501707/PNMA for the change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) to a bedroom for existing residential dwelling (Use Class C3) at [site address] , Kent, [postcode] granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO) is varied by deleting condition No 1.

The Council’s Statement of Case refers to the provision of a new dwelling. However, the description of development and the plans indicate a change of use to provide a bedroom for the existing residential dwelling. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

Prior approval was granted for the change of use from Commercial, Business and Service (Use Class E) to a bedroom for an existing residential dwelling (Use Class C3). The appeal seeks permission to carry out the development without complying with condition No 1 which requires a plan showing the layout of the area in front of the converted building to be provided prior to first occupation. The decision notice indicates that the condition is necessary in the interests of amenity and to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

[name](13) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO confirms that the local planning authority may grant prior approval unconditionally or subject to conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval. The main issue is therefore whether the disputed condition is reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval.

The appeal property comprises of a detached dwelling and ground floor commercial space, connected by an internal door. There is an existing vehicular access located to the side of the property which provides access to the rear of the site. Off-street parking is provided within the site boundary. There is an area of hardstanding located within the site frontage which separates the appeal property from the highway.

Although the Council’s delegated report confirms that there are no highway impacts associated with the proposed development and that adequate natural light would be provided, the Statement of Case explains that the condition is required in order to ensure the transport impacts1 of the proposed development are acceptable and that the proposal would provide adequate natural light in all habitable rooms2. In relation to both criteria, the principal focus would appear to be the area of hardstanding within the site frontage.

It is alleged by the Council that a vehicle parked within the site frontage would restrict access to the site. There is however no indication within the submitted documents that the proposal would generate a demand for additional parking, or that such provision would be provided on the area of hardstanding. That said, even if this area was used for parking, the evidence does not suggest that access to the site would be obstructed or indeed unsafe.

It is recognised that the appeal site is located in an area where there is likely to be a greater dependence on private vehicles. I have also had regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in relation to the charging of electric vehicles. However, the evidence before me does not clearly demonstrate that the requirement for a charging point reasonably relates to the transport impacts of the proposed development within the common meaning of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO. The provision of adequate natural daylight in all habitable rooms of the dwellinghouse

The proposed plans indicate that the proposed bedroom would be served by existing windows in the front and side elevations of the property. It is acknowledged that a vehicle parked within the site frontage would partially obscure the front window. However, given the size and position of the existing windows, I am satisfied that the proposal would provide adequate natural light to the ground floor habitable rooms consistent with the Framework in respect of amenity. Furthermore, whilst noting the requirement for details of defensible space, no substantive evidence has been provided by the Council to indicate why this is 1 [name].2 (2)(a) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO 2 [name] 2(f) of Schedule 2, Part 3, Class MA of the GPDO necessary in relation to natural daylight. For these reasons, I find that the requirements of the condition do not reasonably relate to the subject matter.

The appellant’s correspondence of 8 June 2022 suggests a potential willingness to submit the details required by the condition. However, the fact that the appellant may be prepared to provide the information does not justify requiring it by planning condition. Such information should be reasonably related to the prior approval matters and in this particular case it is not.

On the basis of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the condition would be reasonably related to the prior approval matters. Thus, it is not necessary or reasonable and would therefore fail the tests set out in the Framework.

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds, and I will vary the original approval by deleting the disputed condition.