Appeal 6003213

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/2025/1181 for enlarged porch, change to front fenestration at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] granted on 29 December 2025 by Tandridge District Council, is varied by deleting condition 4.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Tandridge District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of an enlarged porch and change to front fenestration, which included a condition removing permitted development rights for extensions, roof alterations, porches and outbuildings. The Council considers the condition to be necessary to retain control over the habitable accommodation and ensure that the dwelling is not enlarged contrary to the restrictive policy applicable in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The appellant, however, objects to the condition because they consider it is unreasonable and unnecessary and that the required justification for removing permitted development rights does not exist. In doing so, they seek to remove condition 4.

The main issue, therefore, is the effect that removing the condition would have on openness, with particular regard to the site’s location in the Green Belt.

The condition was imposed with the aim of protecting the openness of the Green Belt. Houses within the Green Belt are not excluded by the GPDO from permitted development rights that apply to dwellings, meaning that the same limitations apply in the Green Belt as elsewhere. Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) allows for development within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, including, amongst other things: its enlargement, improvement or other alteration; additions to its roof; porches; and buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The appeal site is situated within a small cluster of residential roads washed over by the Green Belt and, in common with nearby properties, contains a detached house with a generous rear garden. The land behind the property slopes up and is heavily wooded, thus screening the site from longer views. Owing to the developed character of the immediate area and the enclosed nature of the rear garden, the appeal site makes only a moderate contribution to the visual aspect of the Green Belt’s openness as a whole. The physical presence of the house and the space that it occupies means that the contribution of the site to the spatial aspect of Green Belt openness as a whole is also limited.

Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 [name] 2014 (TLP) state that whilst the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt, an exception is the extension or alteration of buildings not resulting in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. A Certificate of Lawfulness exists for a two storey rear and single storey side extension1, and planning permission is extant for the demolition of the garage and rear conservatory and the erection of a two storey side/rear addition plus enlarged porch2. In attaching the condition, the Council considered that further extensions could result in a cumulative loss of Green Belt openness.

However, whilst further works could potentially be undertaken as permitted development, in addition to the lawful/permitted extensions and the consented porch, there is nothing to indicate that such works would be disproportionate in relation to the size of the original building when assessed against Policy DP13 of the TLP, or that they would have a harmful effect on openness given the site characteristics I have identified. Consequently, there is insufficient justification for removing permitted development rights as a means of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to the fact that a condition removing permitted development rights for further enlargement of the dwelling has previously been successfully appealed against3.

I conclude that the condition does not further the aims of policies DP10 and DP13 of the TLP, and that removing the condition would not have a harmful effect on openness having regard to the site’s location in the Green Belt. Policy CSP 18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy Adopted 15 October 2008, which is referred to in the decision notice, relates to design standards and is not directly relevant to openness. 1 LPA reference 2024/376 2 LPA reference 2025/776 3 PINS reference APP/M3645/W/25/3376114

[name] have concluded that the disputed condition is not reasonable and necessary in the interests of the openness of the Green Belt, I will vary the planning permission by deleting the disputed condition.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the planning permission should be varied as set out in the formal decision.