Appeal 6000722

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/00103/FUL for ‘Proposed two storey side extension and minor changes to parking/vehicle turning area. Replacement windows’ at Plymyard, Barrow, Boddington, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire [postcode] , granted on 27 June 2025, is varied by deleting condition No 5.

The main issues are: • Whether condition 4 is necessary and reasonable having regard to protecting the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether condition 5 is necessary with regards to screening the extension.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt, where development is strictly controlled by both local and national policy to preserve the area’s openness and permanence. Appeal Ref: 6000722

The approved extension would extend the floor area of the original building well beyond the 50% increase in size generally accepted by the Council as constituting a proportionate addition. Without the partial removal of the garage, the overall increase in floor area would be significant and result in a disproportionate addition to the original building. On this basis, the development would not meet exception c) of paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and would thus constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Framework sets out that such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

No special circumstances have been put forward. Unless the building’s footprint were reduced through the partial removal of the existing garage, the level of increase resulting from the proposed development would also clearly reduce the openness of the Green Belt, in both spatial and physical terms. However, the securing of the partial demolition of the garage by condition 4 ensures the proposed development meets the above exception and complies with Policy SD5 of the [name] 2011 - 2031. Consequently, the condition is necessary having regard to protecting the openness of the Green Belt. With the submitted proposed plans showing approximately half of the existing garage removed, the condition is also reasonable.

The lack of reference to the garage’s partial demolition in the description of development, the Council’s delayed determination of the planning application and the appellant choosing to start works at their own risk prior to the permission being granted do not lead me to a different conclusion. In coming to this view, I have also taken into account the Council not indicating that such a condition would be imposed when discussing the pending permission with the appellant; that the partial removal of the garage will require various matters to be agreed with the joint owners and finishes made good; and that the appellant has been using the garage to temporarily store furniture during the building works.

As the appellant’s intention is to demolish the garage once the furniture is returned to the house, I have considered whether the condition could be amended to vary the timing clause. However, no alternative wording has been put to me and I observed on my site visit that the extension appears to already be in use, at least on the ground floor. As such, it seems to me that adopting a similar timing clause to, for example, that in condition 5 (relating to the first use of the extension) would neither be reasonable nor leave the appellant in a better position than now. Condition 5

The existing site plan includes some details of existing planting on the site, including for example various trees dotted around the garden and a hedge to the rear of the garage. However, on my visit I observed other planting, such as two trees on the shared boundary with Elm-Lea. Those trees and an existing greenhouse are a similar position to where the proposed site plan ([name] 238/205, [name]) shows ‘new screen planting’.

The reason for condition 5 is given as simply ‘to help screen the proposed extension’. However, the Council’s Officer report refers to the proposed planting when considering the effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbours, whilst its appeal statement suggests the condition is also necessary to help integrate the extension into its rural and Green Belt setting. Appeal Ref: 6000722

Either way, Elm-Lea has no side windows facing the site and the existing planting on the shared boundary provides some screening of the extension. Consequently, condition 5 is not necessary to make the development acceptable with respect to screening the extension for either of the above matters. In addition, the proposed plan gives no details about the type or size of planting that may have been provided. On this basis, even if I had found the condition should remain, it would not necessarily provide the screening that the Council might have envisaged.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is varied by deleting condition 5. However, for the above reasons, condition 4 is not deleted and therefore remains.