Appeal 3342168

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 24/00348/FU for demolition of existing rear extension and greenhouse, erection of a single storey rear extension, a front porch, a pitched roof feature over part of the garage roof, and the insertion of a rooflight at [site address] , granted on 13 March 2024 by Leeds City Council, is varied by deleting condition 5.

The appellants refer to the description of development being amended by the Council, as shown on the decision notice. This is the description used in the decision above.

Planning permission has been granted for the demolition of single storey extensions and the construction of extensions on a semi-detached dwelling. The permission included removing permitted development (PD) rights1 for extensions to the dwelling, with the reason being that it was in the interest of the protection of the Green Belt.

The main issue is, therefore, whether the condition is reasonable or necessary in the interest of the protection of the openness of the Green Belt. 1 Schedule 2, Part 1, [name], B, D and E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO).

The appeal site is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with garden and parking area to the front and a small garden to the rear. This stretch of [address] where the proposal is sited consists of a long row of semi-detached houses of differing styles. They back onto agricultural land to the rear and overlook farmland to the front.

The site is in the Green Belt. The aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and their permanence. The consented development was considered to result in limited development within the Green Belt in accordance with Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review–2006)2, 2006 (UDP). This policy broadly reflects paragraph 154 c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which allows the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Whilst disproportionate additions are not defined in the Framework, Policy HDG3 in [name] Planning Document, 2012, (SPD) considers that a 30% increase over and above the volume of the original building is a reasonable interpretation of a limited extension. There is no dispute between the main parties that the approved extensions, following the demolition of an existing rear extension and a greenhouse, would result in a 29.47% increase in volume of the original dwelling.

The Council has set out that the removal of PD rights from the approval provided an opportunity to maintain control over harmful development in the Green Belt and restrict future sprawl. Whilst not meant to prevent development, the condition was seen by the Council as one of the considerations necessary to make the development proposal acceptable.

The consented scheme was reduced in size from the original proposal. The sun room and greenhouse, which are required to be removed as part of the consent, are referred to by the Council as being of a size that could be built under PD rights, or replaced following the grant of planning permission. Therefore, they considered it reasonable to remove PD rights for [name], B, D and E.

The approved development has a 3-metre rear extension along one boundary of the property, with a covered area next to it. Therefore, this limits what could be built under Class A of the GPDO to a small, single-storey extension, 3 metres in depth from the rear of the original building. Any larger extension up to 6 metres3, would require the Council to be notified as to whether prior approval is needed. As there is already an extension along the side of the house, this would restrict any further extensions that could be built using PD rights in this location.

Whilst Class B of the GPDO could allow extensions to the roof, including a rear dormer extension, these would be limited by the volume increase set out in the GPDO and must conform to the relevant conditions. 2 Volume 1: [name] 3 Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO).

Class D allows a small porch outside any external door of the house. The consented scheme includes a front porch extension, and even if the appellant wanted a porch outside a rear door, this would be limited by the size allowed in the GPDO. Moreover, a small rear porch would not harm the openness of the Green Belt.

Class E would allow within the rear garden, buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. However, the rear garden is small. Whilst the Council consider that a building could be placed immediately adjacent to the rear boundary, height restrictions and distances from boundaries apply. Therefore, any building would not be large. Moreover, a small garden shed or other structure within this tightly defined suburban residential garden plot would not harm the openness of the Green Belt in this location.

Paragraph 54 of the Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance also advises that conditions of this nature will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic and non-domestic alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness or necessity4.

The GPDO does not differentiate between these rights in the Green Belt. Therefore, small-scale additions allowed under these rights would not generally conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or the essential characteristics of openness and permanence. In addition, the UDP and [name] do not include removing PD rights in the Green Belt, and even if they did, this would not remove the need to consider whether the condition would accord with the tests in the Framework for valid conditions, along with other aspects of national policy.

The Council considered that the consented scheme was contained within the domestic setting of the site and did not harm the character and openness of the Green Belt. This would be the case with any future extensions allowed under PD rights which would be within the suburban garden setting that exists along [address]. Whilst any future extensions built under PD rights would be likely to exceed the 30% increase in volume as set out in the SPD, these would be limited because of the consented permission and the limited size of the rear garden. Therefore, they would be unlikely to result in disproportionate additions to the original building.

I therefore conclude that the disputed condition is not reasonable or necessary in the interests of protecting the openness of the Green Belt. I shall therefore allow the appeal and vary the original permission by deleting the disputed

The Council’s statement refers to two appeal decisions. The first at [address], Bramham5 was for the replacement of two semi-detached houses with two detached dwellings in the Green Belt. However, the scale of development 4 21a-017-20190723 5 APP/4720/W/22/3294783 in this case is much greater than the appeal site and issues of neighbouring and visual amenity, as well as the effects on the Green Belt were considered. Therefore, this is not comparable to the case before me.

The second decision at 2 Swillington Lane6 was an appeal against a condition removing PD rights. In this case, personal circumstances were put forward. Moreover, the property was detached, in extensive grounds, and in a prominent location, making it highly visible within the area. Therefore, any additions to the house under Class A and B and utilising Class E of the GPDO would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. These circumstances are not the same as this appeal. Therefore, I give this limited weight.

The parties reference properties along [address] where extensions have been allowed, and in two cases where PD rights have been removed. These cases, as well as other submitted evidence demonstrate that each case must be determined on its own merits. Notwithstanding these decisions, I have determined the appeal based on the evidence before me.

For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed.