Appeal 6002931

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref 25/10759 for demolition of existing single-storey dwelling and construction of new two-storey dwelling on existing footprint at [site address] , granted on 27 November 2025 by New Forest District Council, is varied by deleting condition No.7.

I saw during my site visit that the former bungalow has been demolished and that the planning approval the subject of this appeal has commenced. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly, based on the merits of the proposal before me.

The appeal site lies on the west side of [site address] in open countryside to the north of, and outside of, the designated settlement boundary of [site address] . It is also within the Southwest Hampshire Green Belt (the SWHGB). The site lies within a row of residential properties fronting the west side of this rural lane. These comprise a variety of dwelling sizes and designs. They back onto open fields and there are undeveloped fields on the opposite side of the lane also.

The site was previously occupied by a detached bungalow. The Council granted permission in September 2025 for alterations and extensions to the bungalow to create a two-storey dwelling.1 That permission is not subject to a condition removing householder permitted development rights.

The application the subject of this appeal was subsequently granted for the replacement of the bungalow with a new two-storey dwelling on the existing building footprint. Condition 7 of that permission removed householder permitted development rights under Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (the GPDO) in respect of extensions or alterations that would be permitted under Class A (the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse), Class B (the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof) and Class C (any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse), as well as garages or outbuildings which would be permitted under Class E (buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse). It also removed permitted development rights for the erection of any means of enclosure that would be permitted under Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A (gates, fences, walls etc) of the GPDO.

Subject to the removal of an existing rear extension and conservatory in respect of the first permission, the percentage increase in floorspace in the case of both planning approvals is similar. This amounts to 34% according to the Council and 31% according to the appellant. The overall scale and massing of the two approved schemes are also similar.

Having regard to the above, and since there were no material changes in site circumstances or planning policy between the granting of the two permissions, the appellant seeks the removal of condition 7 of the latter permission on the grounds of inconsistency of decision-making and a lack of justification for the removal of permitted development rights.

The Council’s reason for the condition is to ensure that the dwelling remains of an appropriate size having regard to its countryside location. The officer report explains that permitted development rights were removed to prevent future enlargements to the approved scheme, which the Council considered to be of an appropriate size, being not materially larger than the building to be replaced. This was having particular regard to Paragraph 154 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2025 (the Framework) in respect of development within the Green Belt and Policy DM20 of the New Forest District Outside the National Park Local Plan Part 2: Sites and Development Management (2014) (the LPP2) which sets a limit on the size of increased floorspace over and above the existing dwelling.

The main issue is therefore whether the disputed condition 7 is reasonable and necessary to make the development acceptable in the context of the site’s location within the Green Belt and the countryside.

The Framework at Paragraph 57 states that planning conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed when they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. More specifically, Paragraph 55 of the Framework is clear that 1 Roof alterations including dormers and roof lights to facilitate creation of first floor; demolition of existing rear extension and conservatory; fenestration alterations, render to ground floor and timber cladding to first. [name] 25/10655 granted 9 September 2025 planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is a clear justification to do so.

Furthermore, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small-scale domestic and non-domestic alterations that would otherwise not require an application for planning permission are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.2

Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO sets out the permitted development rights for development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Schedule 2 Part 2 Class A sets out the permitted development rights in respect of minor operations involving gates, fences, walls etc, which apply to dwellinghouses as well as being more widely applicable.

These permitted development rights have not been restricted within the Green Belt by the GPDO, unlike in, for example, National Parks and conservation areas. This strongly suggests that dwellings within the Green Belt should be treated no differently than those outside the Green Belt, and that the starting point is that permitted development rights should remain in place unless clear justification is advanced which is precisely defined and specific to the site.

The officer report confirms that, in granting planning permission Ref 25/10759, the Council considered that, given the modest increase in floorspace and the reduction in footprint, the new dwelling would not be materially larger than the one it would replace and that, as such, the approved scheme complied with Paragraph 154 d) of the Framework and did not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

In coming to that view, the Council assessed the application in accordance with LPP2 Policy DM20 which states that replacement dwellings should not normally provide for an increase in floorspace of more than 30% over the size of the dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1982 or as originally built or legally established.

Neither the text of Policy DM20 nor the supporting text specifically explain the purpose of the 30% floorspace limit it sets, nor the reason for the 1982 date, but the Council’s appeal statement indicates that the policy seeks to strictly control extensions and replacements of dwellings in the countryside and that the floorspace increase limit is to prevent disproportionate additions and incremental harm to rural character.

Notwithstanding that this policy does not specifically refer to sites within the Green Belt, I find that it provides a useful and consistent guide as to what might be considered to comprise a ‘materially larger’ replacement dwelling.

In the case of the approved dwelling, the Council found that whilst the development exceeded the 30% increase, in the circumstances of this scheme, whereby there was an extant permission for extensions that amounted to a similar increase in building size, the footprint of the building would be reduced and the design, scale and appearance of the building was found to be appropriate, there was no conflict with Policy DM20.

Accordingly, the Council found the approved scheme to be acceptable having regard to national Green Belt policies and Policy ENV2 of the New Forest District 2 Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-[phone] outside of the New Forest National Park Local Plan 2016-2036 Part 1: Planning Strategy (July 2020) (the LPP1) which seeks to preserve the openness and permanence of the SWHGB and requires development proposals therein to be determined in accordance with national planning policy.

As such, the approved new dwelling does not, in itself, provide ‘clear justification’ for removing permitted development rights.

The Council is concerned that the reinstatement of permitted development rights would allow future increases in built form and floorspace that could cumulatively result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, contrary to Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework and harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.

I acknowledge that permitted development rights can result in a quite extensive range of built development. However, I am mindful that permitted development rights are subject to restrictions in terms of size and location within the curtilage, and that these restrictions would provide a level of protection that would prevent uncontrolled development.

In the specific circumstances of the appeal site, it lies within a ribbon development of detached dwellings along the west side of [site address] which forms part of an established residential enclave. It is enclosed on all sides by trees, hedging and fencing and is well-screened in views from [site address] . These boundary features provide a strong sense of containment to the site which would restrict any encroachment into the surrounding countryside spatially and visually.

Moreover, I am satisfied that the GPDO provides for sufficient safeguards to prevent overdevelopment of the site. These restrictions place a limit on the size and height of the extensions which may be permitted and the height of means of enclosure. Any extensions or alterations would not project excessively from the sides or rear or extend beyond a wall forming the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse. Nor would they be able to exceed the height of the roof line. In this context, therefore, any possible works that may be carried out to the appeal property would be subordinate to the dwelling. Nor would the total area of ground covered by buildings other than the original dwellinghouse exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse.

Having regard to the scope of what could be built and the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area, I am not persuaded that the approved dwelling, if further extended or curtilage developed as part of its permitted development rights would have an effect on the openness of the Green Belt or its purposes such that it would justify the removal of permitted development rights.

Furthermore, the fact that permitted development rights have not been removed for land in the Green Belt means that the government’s fundamental Green Belt aim of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open does not necessarily extend to preventing permitted development rights within a domestic curtilage.

Given this context and bearing in mind the limitations of the GPDO in terms of the size and position of permitted development, the site circumstances do not appear unique in this case, and I am not persuaded that alterations, extensions, outbuildings and means of enclosure that could be constructed using permitted development rights would have such an effect on the openness of the Green Belt and its purposes, that the removal of permitted development rights is clearly justified.

The Council also contends that the retention of condition 7 is justified on the basis that, since the approved dwelling exceeds the 30% increase in floorspace criterion of LPP2 Policy DM20, it represents the upper limit of what the Council consider to be acceptable for a new dwelling outside the settlement boundary.

The Council’s appeal statement indicates that, as well as serving to prevent disproportionate additions, the restriction on the amount of additional floorspace of Policy DM20 also seeks to prevent incremental harm to rural character.

The approved dwelling would be sited within a row of street-facing detached dwellings of various designs and sizes, set within similarly sized plots. There is no evidence before me that any of the other dwellings have had permitted development rights removed. Moreover, noting the aforesaid constraints imposed by the GPDO, the Council has not explained specifically how any future development carried out to the property under the permitted development removed by condition 7 would result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the area.

As such, I find that, in the absence of any clearly identified harm should condition 7 not be imposed, no necessity for the imposition of the condition has been demonstrated. The fact that the 30% limit on cumulative increases in floorspace set out in Policy DM20 of LPP2 has already been breached does not in itself represent clear justification for the imposition of condition 7.

For the above reasons, and with reference to the Framework and the guidance in the PPG, I therefore conclude that it has not been shown that there is clear justification for the removal of permitted development rights under the stated Classes and I do not find condition 7 to be reasonable or necessary to make the development acceptable in the context of the site’s location within the Green Belt and the countryside.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed for the grant of a new planning permission with conditions as set out in the formal decision above.