Appeal 6003280

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission Ref DM2025/00953 for “erection of a detached two storey dwelling including car parking spaces, electrical vehicle charging points, refuse and cycle stores to the front, new boundary treatments including side access gates and associated hard and soft landscaping” at [site address] , Banstead, Sutton [postcode] granted on 20 October 2025 by the Council of the London Borough of Sutton, is varied by deleting conditions 11 and 16.

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

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework are proposed as part of this consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

In their statement of case, the Council concede that Condition 11 was included due to a clerical error and they will not contest the removal of the condition. It is not therefore necessary for this matter to form a main issue.

Condition 16 was attached to the planning permission to protect the living conditions of the residential dwelling known as [name] adjacent to the north of the appeal site. The reason also refers to preventing overdevelopment of an already constrained site. [name] find the term ‘overdevelopment’ unclear, in this context it is referenced in the reason for refusal in relation to the potential effect on living conditions.

In light of the above, the main issue is whether condition 16 is reasonable and necessary, having particular regard to the living conditions of the neighbouring residential dwelling ‘[name].

The area is semi-rural in character, with dwellings along [site address] to the north and south of the appeal site. The approved dwelling would be set in a substantial plot, broadly in line with the dwellings to the north. Although the footprint of the dwelling would be wider and deeper than the dwellings to the north, it would be set back from the highway and from its boundary with [name]. The spacing of the proposal relative to surrounding dwellings would be consistent with the pattern of development in the area.

[name] lies directly adjacent to the appeal site, to its north. It is a two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof and windows to the front and rear. There are no windows to the side elevation facing the appeal site. A single storey garage abuts the boundary between [name] and the appeal site.

The Framework states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. The Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph reference 21a-[phone]) (PPG) states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights may not pass the tests of reasonableness or necessity. Furthermore, it advises that area-wide or blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations, which would otherwise not require an application for planning permission, are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness and necessity.

Permitted development rights can in some circumstances permit sizeable extensions. The Council has not set out what the potential for further development of the appeal site within the relevant classes of the GPDO could amount to on the appeal site. Neither has the appellant indicated any intention regarding future extensions and there is no evidence before me as to whether permitted development rights are likely to be used to their maximum.

The permitted development right for enlargements to existing dwellings is established in [name] and B of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO). This sets out a range of conditions and limitations that are required to be adhered to for the permitted development right to apply. This includes limitations on the location of extensions and alterations, on height relative to the existing dwelling, and on the extent of ground covered by buildings.

I note the appellant’s point that in any event, given there is a small side return around halfway across the rear elevation, this would consequently limit the scale of any potential extensions carried out under Class A.

Alterations to the roof under Class B would potentially allow an extension to the catslide roof. However, given the setback from the boundary and position of the catslide relative to the side elevation of [name] where there are no windows facing the appeal site, the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name] itself would be very limited.

Permitted development in relation to outbuildings is set out by Class E of part 1 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Similarly, this sets out a range of restrictions on building height and ground covered. It is not unusual to see ancillary buildings in the vicinity of houses and the limitations on scale set out by the GPDO would ensure that the presence of outbuildings would not in themselves harm the living conditions of the adjacent dwelling.

The reason for refusal refers to Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031 Policy 29 which amongst other things, aims to protect the amenity of those currently occupying adjoining or nearby properties with particular regard to loss of privacy, outlook and light. Even if future occupiers of the approved dwelling were to carry out extensions and alterations under [name] and B, and erect outbuildings pursuant to Class E, there would be sufficient safeguards contained in the GPDO with regards to the scale of any extension or alteration to prevent an unacceptably harmful effect on living conditions with respect to loss of privacy, outlook or light.

Consequently, I do not find that condition 16 is reasonable or necessary in the interests of protecting the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling [name].

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting Conditions 11 and 16.