Appeal 3361080

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission granted for the demolition of garage and conservatory, single storey side/rear extension, alterations to existing rear extension. Alteration to existing drive and formation of new driveway at [site address] in accordance with PL/24/3742/VRC with a variation to condition No.6 previously imposed on planning permission PL/24/2121/FA and subject to the conditions as set out in the attached schedule.

Planning permission was granted under Council reference MO/2019/1857 for various alterations to the property. The property is located within the Green Belt, and in considering that proposal, the Council found that the scheme constituted inappropriate development and did not align with Local Plan policies. It was permitted as a result of very special circumstances, with the other considerations noted as no increase in floorspace (a very minor reduction) and that there would be a betterment in terms of Green Belt openness with a consolidation of built form.

The permitted development rights that the condition in dispute would remove are [name] (extensions), B (roof alterations) and E (buildings within the curtilage) of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).

The appellant seeks either the removal of the condition or its variation to restrict Class E only. They also raise concerns regarding the wording of the condition.

The main issues are therefore whether or not the disputed condition is reasonable and necessary, with particular regard to the openness of the Green Belt, and whether it is precise.

Paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises 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 respects. Paragraph 55 also states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.

The approved development is effectively a redistribution of the existing floorspace, with the proposed extensions facilitated by the demolition of the garage. The scale of the extensions exceeds the provisions of policy GB10 of the South Bucks District Local Plan, with the increase in floorspace being more than half of the original dwelling. The development was, however, granted planning permission as the Council considered the harm by reason of inappropriateness was clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

The potential to re-provide the floorspace that is to be removed through permitted development could diminish or eliminate the very special circumstances that have been demonstrated. In my view, this provides reasonable and necessary justification for the removal of permitted development rights, which would enable the provision of an outbuilding similar in scale to the existing garage. The removal of Class E only is the variation to the condition promoted by the appellant, and while it extends to all outbuildings and would cover small structures, it means that a planning application is required, not necessarily that all outbuildings are restricted.

[name] understand the Council’s rationale for including classes A and B in terms of the potential to increase the size of the property, I am also conscious that permitted development rights are national provisions and apply to properties within the Green Belt. Currently, the property is not subject to any restrictions, and I agree with the appellant that, based on the extent of the approved extensions to the side and rear of the property, opportunities for further extensions are limited. The roof is in its original form, and any alterations would be subject to the limitations of Class B and would not alter the building's footprint. It is indicated that the initial proposal was amended to remove alterations which were proposed for the roof. However, there are no plans before me, nor any specific evidence that the same changes could be achieved under permitted development.

Reference has been made to other appeal decisions relating to the removal of permitted development rights1. These relate to different forms of development (a barn conversion and an ancillary building), and the potential harm to the character of the area is also noted in addition to the impact on Green Belt openness. As such, they are not directly comparable, and even in those cases, different permitted rights were removed. Accordingly, each proposal is to be considered on its own merits and the particular circumstances of that case.

[address] is part of a residential area, and as acknowledged by the Council, such forms of development would not be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. The site is adjacent to a conservation area; however, no specific harm has been identified, and the reason for refusal is solely related to the Green Belt. In that regard, and based on the proposed development being contingent on the demolition of the garage, the removal of Class E is directly related to the development. However, in my view, there is no clear justification for removing permitted development rights in relation to [name] and B, and they are not necessary or reasonable. I therefore conclude that condition No.6 should be accordingly varied.

The appellant has also raised concerns regarding the precise wording of the existing condition. As the condition is to be varied in terms of the classes, some variation to the wording is necessary, including the removal of reference to ‘no enlargement, improvement or other alteration’. I have also omitted the unnecessary references to specific buildings, but I have amended the wording so that it directly refers to the requirement for planning permission for such development.

While neither party has referred to any other conditions, as this is an application under section 73, it is necessary to repeat the conditions of the original planning permission. However, section 73 cannot extend the time of an application, and therefore, condition No.1 is revised so that development must commence within 3 years of the date of the original permission. [name] have no information that any of the other conditions have been complied with, I have reimposed all the other

For the reasons given above and taking into account all other considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in relation to the variation of condition No.6 and a new planning permission granted without the restrictions to permitted development right classes A and B.