Appeal 6001904

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a three bedroom dwelling in lieu of side garage at [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the application [name]/REMVAR/25/00227, without compliance with condition number 7 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/PL/14/00371 dated 14 November 2014 and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule below.

On 14 November 2014, the Council granted planning permission for the erection of a new dwelling on the site (‘the original permission’). This was granted subject to a number of conditions of which condition 7 removed permitted development rights for classes of the General Permitted Development Order (‘the GPDO’) relating to extensions, roof alterations and outbuildings. As a consequence, planning permission would be required for those alterations. The reason for the imposition of that condition is in the banner heading above and relates to neighbouring amenity, citing development plan policies at the time.

On 28 May 2025 the appellant applied to the Council to have condition 7 removed. This was consequently refused in the decision notice of 15 September 2025 and it is that refusal which is the subject of this appeal.

During my site visit I observed that the site has been cleared and some foundations laid. The Council state that it does not dispute that works have been lawfully commenced within the time limit imposed by the original permission and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect that removing condition 7 would have on living conditions of occupants of the nearby properties.

Permitted development rights allow householders to improve and extend their homes without the need to apply for planning permission where that would be out of proportion with the impact of the works carried out1. Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. At paragraph 57 it 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, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) also advises on this matter, stating that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity.

The appeal site occupies a corner plot set within a residential area of two storey properties of varying design and displaying a variety of extensions and alterations. By reason of its corner position, the new property would adjoin no.107 to the west which is un-extended to the rear, and the side elevation of no.161 to the north. No.161 is set on slightly higher ground and is separated from the appeal site by a single storey garage and close boarded fencing. It has one first floor window, appearing to serve a non-habitable room, facing towards the appeal site, as well as a glazed conservatory to its rear elevation. Based on the findings of my site visit I do not consider the site’s circumstances, or its relationship to these neighbouring properties, to be unusual or significantly different to others in the surrounding area, where corner properties adjoin the side elevations of properties behind. A similar relationship exists, for example, at no.108 [name].

The Council’s assessment makes generalised assertions surrounding the potential effects that future extensions may have. However, given the site’s relationship to its neighbours and the typical relationships in the area, it is not apparent that these amount to clear justification to impose tighter restrictions on future development than other properties in the surrounding area. It is not apparent that the provisions of the GPDO, which include limitations of the height of extensions and new windows, would not be sufficient to ensure acceptable living conditions of neighbouring properties are maintained.

For these reasons, I do not consider there is clear justification for the limitations imposed by condition 7 and the condition does not meet the test of reasonableness or necessity here. I do not find conflict with Policy PL2 of the Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 (the LDP), which requires development to preserve or enhance the level of amenity of existing and future occupants. 1 Permitted Development Rights for Householders: Technical Guidance September 2019

While not part of the reason that condition 7 was imposed, concerns have been raised that the visual effects of future works could be visually overbearing. However, this is not substantiated and I observed a variety of other extensions and alterations to other properties in the surrounding area, including those adjacent to the road edge, which form an inherent part of the character of this residential area. Again, it is not apparent that the site’s location amounts to a clear justification to remove permitted development rights. I do not find conflict with Policy PL1 of the LDP which requires high standards of design.

I have had regard to the concerns of interested parties, including potential impacts on parking and accessibility of outbuildings. However there is not substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that having permitted development rights would cause unacceptable effects in those respects.

As a consequence of these findings, a new planning permission can be granted without condition 7, which would be separate to the original permission. The PPG makes clear that the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect.

As the development has been commenced, it is not necessary to impose the time limit condition. I note several conditions have been discharged and the Council have suggested wording for those conditions, cross referencing the approved details. I have therefore imposed those conditions on that basis. The Council have suggested an additional condition listing the approved drawings, which was excluded from the original permission. I consider that condition to be necessary to provide certainty to all parties and this is therefore added to the permission. I do not consider that the removal of condition 7 necessitates the inclusion of any other new conditions.

For the reasons given the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted external facing and roofing materials, approved under application reference HW/CND/15/00207.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted landscape method statement, landscape measures and boundary treatments, approved under application reference HW/PL/14/00371. The rear garden shall be bound by a 1.[address] boarded fence along the eastern site boundary. The landscape scheme will be implemented during the next planting season following completion of the development.

No construction work shall be carried out on the site at any time on Sundays or public holidays, or before 8.00am or after 6.00pm on Mondays to Fridays, or before 08.30am or after 2.00pm on Saturdays.

Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied or used, space for the loading, unloading, parking and manoeuvring of vehicles shall be provided within the site in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be kept available for such purposes.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted drainage scheme, approved under application reference HW/PL/14/00371. The parking bats to the south of the dwelling shall be surfaced in porous brick pavers. The scheme and the porous surface parking bays shall be constructed in their entirety prior to the accesses becoming operational and shall be retained at all times.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: F.M.1, F.M.2/A, F.M.3D. End of Schedule