Appeal 6000214

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue relevant to this appeal is whether the condition in dispute is reasonable and necessary.

Planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing chalet bungalow and construction of a new house. The Officer’s Report identified several dwellings around the site that may be affected by the development but concluded that the scheme as proposed would be acceptable in this regard. However, it was determined that if the dwelling was extended or outbuildings erected that such development could harm the living conditions of nearby occupiers as well as overdevelop the plot for [site address] (No 14) and thus harm the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant does not dispute the Council’s reasoning behind restricting permitted development rights for extensions, enlargements or alterations to the dwelling. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree with the Council’s reasoning in this regard. However, the appellant contends that it was unreasonable and unnecessary to restrict permitted development rights for outbuildings, as permitted by Class E of the GPDO.

Reference has been made to the guidance in Circular 11/95, however, other than [name] of that circular, the publication has been cancelled and replaced by new planning practice guidance. The National Planning Policy Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights (PD rights) unless there is a clear justification to do so. Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance advises that the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.

Condition 9 only restricted PD rights to erect buildings, structures, extensions, enlargements or alterations permitted by [name], B or E of the GPDO at the appeal site and as such this was not an area wide or blanket removal of freedoms. The condition is also precisely defined by reference to the relevant provisions of the GPDO. As a result, such a condition would be reasonable.

The proposed dwelling would replace a single storey bungalow with a two-storey building. Whilst this would be taller than the existing dwelling it would only extend a modest distance further into the garden. The garden associated with No 14 is relatively large and rectangular in shape and is mostly flat.

[address] (No 12) is the neighbouring property with No 14 but is built partly perpendicular to it. No 12 is a bungalow with a narrow irregularly shaped garden and the rear elevation faces towards the shared side boundary fence with No

The rear garden at No 12 is very shallow nearest the house itself and there are windows within that rear elevation located close to the shared boundary with No 14. Given the garden’s limited size and unusual shape, the potential for outbuildings to be erected close to the rear windows within No 12 would enclose the outlook from those rooms. The possibility of outbuildings, built to the greatest extent permitted by Class E, erected close to this shared boundary would appear significantly overbearing to the occupiers of No 12, causing harm to their living conditions. This provides clear justification that it is necessary to restrict permitted development rights in this instance.

To the rear of the appeal site are 15 and [address] which are two storey semi-detached dwellings. The rectangular shaped gardens for these two dwellings are similar in depth to each other and are, based on the Council’s figures, around 10-11 metres deep. As a result, the rear elevations of these dwellings are located a modest distance from the shared boundary with No 14. Taking into consideration the size of those gardens, the modest scale and set back that would be required to comply with Class E, outbuildings built near to the shared boundary would not appear significantly overbearing and thus would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of these dwellings. As such, it is not necessary for permitted development rights to be restricted in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15 and [address].

Given that the approved development would retain a large garden, even if outbuildings were erected up to the greatest extent permitted by Class E, No 14 would retain a spaciously sized garden appropriate for a dwelling of the size permitted. As such, it is not necessary for permitted development rights to be restricted in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 14.

[name] 14 is built at a slight angle to [address] much of the rear garden is generally screened by the house itself and nearby properties. The completion of the proposed two storey dwelling would also result in outbuildings being screened to a greater degree than the existing chalet bungalow on site. Given what could be erected under Class E would generally be modest in scale, if seen within the street scene, they would appear subordinate to the scale of the permitted house. Furthermore, outbuildings would not appear out of character, in this mostly residential context. Additionally, the retained garden at No 14 would be relatively large and even if the full extent of what could be built under Class E was undertaken, the appeal site would not appear overdeveloped or cramped even when taking into consideration the larger scale of the permitted dwelling. As such, it is not necessary to restrict permitted development rights in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, there is clear justification for the restriction of permitted development rights for outbuildings. It is also not disputed that there is clear justification for the restriction of permitted development rights for extensions, enlargements or alterations of the permitted dwelling. As such, the condition in dispute is reasonable and necessary, and its removal would be contrary to Policy 37 of the Bromley Local Plan which seeks, amongst other matters, for development to respect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.