Appeal 3322216

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 7-2022-5931-AU for extensions and alterations involving replacement of conservatories, installation of first floor terraces to North, East and West elevations, alterations to fenestration including addition of roof lights and erection of bin and cycle stores at [site address] granted on 20 March 2023 by [name] and Poole Council, is varied by deleting condition 6.

An application for costs was made by Westbourne Holdings Ltd against [name] and Poole Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

At the time of my site visit the development had commenced and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of those plans.

Planning permission was granted under reference 7-2022-5931-AU on the 20 March 2023 subject to 9 conditions. These include condition numbers 6 and 7 requiring the submission of details of [name] for approval within 3 months of the commencement of development and submission and approval of a Refuse Management Plan before first use of the building. Subsequent to this, [name] was granted under reference 7- 2023-5931-AV for a Change of use of offices (Class E) to 14 flats (Class C3).

The appellant’s Appeal Statement states that the conditions being appealed are numbers 6 and 7. The appellant states that it is unreasonable for the Council to impose these conditions as the planning application was not for a change or intensification of use, as the planning application pre-dates the subsequent [name] and as the conditions are not relevant to the development.

In light of the above, the main issues are whether the conditions are relevant to the development permitted, and whether they are reasonable and necessary having regard to the encouragement of the use of sustainable modes of transport and effect on the living conditions of nearby occupiers and on the character and appearance of the area.

The planning permission pre-dates the subsequent [name] allowing the change of use of the building to 14 flats. At the time of the determination of the planning application the building was vacant but previously used as offices.

[name] acknowledge that the plans for the two proposals may be similar, and that the planning permission and [name] could be implemented at the same time, the planning permission is a standalone consent that could be implemented independently of the [name].

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

The planning application comprises relatively minor external alterations to the building and provision of cycle and bin stores. Whilst the plans accompanying the planning application show car parking spaces and annotates [name] (EVCP’s), the EVCP’s do not form part of the description of development and the planning application does not involve a change of use of the land/building or in itself create a demand for car parking. As a result, I do not find condition number 6 requiring the submission and approval of EVCP’s and associated infrastructure relevant to the development permitted. For the same reasons, the condition is not necessary or reasonable to ensure the construction of parking facilities or to encourage the use of sustainable transport modes. As a result, condition number 6 does not meet the tests for the imposition of a condition. Nonetheless, the provision of the cycle store would encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport.

With regard to condition number 7, the description of the proposal on the application form included the ‘erection of a cycle and bin stores’ and this was reflected on the Decision Notice. The presence and size of the bin store would result in demand for the collection of refuse. The Proposed Site Plan1 details the tracking for a private refuse collection vehicle within the site and I have very limited details of any previous bin store or means of collection. In light of this and given the location of the site off a main [address] and roundabout with parking restrictions preventing refuse vehicles collecting from the highway, the proposed condition is related to the development, necessary and reasonable. The condition would ensure appropriate methods of collection in the interests of highway safety, protecting the character and appearance of the area and protecting the living conditions of nearby occupiers.

I conclude that condition number 6 is not relevant to the development and is not reasonable or necessary. The development without the condition would not adversely affect the proper construction of parking facilities or discourage sustainable transport modes. [name] note the requirements for [name] within the Councils Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Document (January 2021) (SPD), I find no conflict with the SPD or Policy CS17 of the Bournemouth Local Plan – [name] (2012) (CS) given that the proposal does not in itself create a demand for car parking or involve a change of use of the building. I do however find condition number 7 to be relevant to the development, reasonable and necessary in accordance with Policy CS41 of the CS that seeks to ensure that new development enhance the character and amenities of neighbouring residents.

I have taken into account the duty, set out in section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. Given the small scale of the proposals and suitable design complementing [site address] and the wider area, I find that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the East Cliff Conservation Area.

For the reasons set out above condition 7 is reasonable and necessary and should therefore remain. However, condition 6 is not required to make the development acceptable and therefore does not meet the tests of being relevant to the development, reasonable or necessary as set out in paragraph 56 of the Framework. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by deleting condition 6 as set out in the decision paragraph above.