Appeal 6002281

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal was lodged on the 5th of December 2025. Accordingly, the appeal was made within 6 months of the date of the decision and is valid. I have made my determination on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal proposal would result in a fundamental change to the development, and / or result in procedural unfairness; and if so, • whether the relevant conditions remain reasonable and necessary to define the permission and to safeguard the character and amenities of the locality.

Planning permission has been granted for extensions and alterations to the dwelling. This includes a two storey side extension, and a single storey rear extension with a balcony on the flat roof. The Council approved the scheme, subject to planning conditions including condition 2, which specified the approved plans and condition 7, which restricted the use of the remainder of the flat roof, such that it could not be used as a balcony or outdoor amenity area. The reason for condition 7 was to safeguard the character and amenities of the locality. The appellant objects to conditions 2 and 7 and seeks a new grant of planning permission in order to provide additional balcony space to the flat roof.

To facilitate the change, I have been provided with two different design options in the form of amended drawings and information, referenced as ‘[name] and ‘[name].’ Whilst the appellant has stated a preference for pursuing ‘[name],’ both have been presented to me, and both differ from the plans the Council based its decision on.

With regard to the Holborn principles1, it is necessary first to consider whether either option would result in a fundamental change to the nature of the development, and then whether accepting the proposed amendments would cause unlawful procedural unfairness to anyone involved. In the interests of fairness, I sought the views of the main parties on this matter.

The planning permission incorporates a modest balcony set to one side. ‘[name] is for a much larger balcony extending across to the opposite side of the flat roof. ‘[name] is for two separate balconies on opposite sides of the flat roof, one of which is identical to the approved scheme.

Taking account of the scale, design and elevated position of the options, together with the fact that balconies are expressly excluded from the scope of permitted development rights, I consider that they would both amount to a fundamental alteration to the nature of the approved development, notwithstanding that one balcony and one Juliet balcony have already been permitted.

The appeal site is flanked by neighbouring occupiers on both sides and to the rear. To take either option into account would result in procedural unfairness to those involved in the appeal and interested parties in particular. I note that some interested parties have engaged with the appeal process, however there is no certainty that others have done so. I have considered whether this might be dealt with by further consultation, but as the Procedural Guide2 makes clear, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme.

On that overall basis, I am not prepared to take ‘[name] or ‘[name] into account.

My findings above, leave me to consider whether condition 2 remains reasonable and necessary to define the permission. Also, from the evidence before me, 1 Established in Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin). 2 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026. whether condition 7 remains reasonable and necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to privacy.

Condition 2 remains reasonable and necessary. It defines the development on the basis of which planning permission has been granted. This is by way of the list of approved drawings.

The effect of removing condition 7, would be that the entirety of the approved flat roof could be used as a balcony or similar outdoor area.

The approved single storey rear extension would project beyond the rear elevations of the adjoining neighbouring dwellings, and its flat roof would sit above these neighbouring ground floor windows. Due to the sloping nature of the land, the flat roof would also be positioned high above the level of the rear gardens. It would also sit higher than the rear elevations and gardens of neighbouring dwellings on Gleggside, albeit these are a greater distance away.

Due to its width, height and extent, the use of the entire flat roof as a balcony or outdoor area, would allow its occupants to look back into the windows of the adjoining neighbouring dwellings on either side, and to have sweeping views across the gardens. Consequently, this would cause a significant degree of overlooking into the windows and gardens of the two adjoining neighbouring properties.

The presence of people outside in an elevated position, using the entirety of the flat roof, would have a much more intrusive aspect and feel than the approved scheme. As such, there would also be an increased perception of a loss of privacy for the occupants of the dwellings on Gleggside to the rear.

Having regard to paragraph 56 of the National Planning Policy Framework, I have considered whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of additional planning conditions. In this case, whether screening could be provided. However, I do not consider that such a planning condition would provide a suitable mitigation measure. This is due to the likely scale and extent of such a screen, and the knock-on implications in relation to substantive changes to the nature of the development.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the disputed conditions remain relevant to the development as they seek to define the permission (condition 2) and safeguard the character and amenities of the locality (condition 7). The disputed conditions are therefore reasonable and necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.