Appeal 6004890

In so far as it relates to Condition S1, the appeal is allowed, and the planning permission Ref 25/00664/PFUL3, for the development described above at [site address] , Nottingham [postcode] , granted on 11 August 2025 by Nottingham City Council, is varied by deleting condition S1 and substituting for it the following new condition: Condition S1A: The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown in the following approved plans: [name] - Revision 00, dated 1 April 2025 Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Revision 00, dated 1 April 2025 [name], Roof and Loft Plan - Revision 00, dated 1 April 2025 Proposed Garage Plan and Elevations - Revision 00, dated 1 April 2025 [name] and Site Plans – Revision 00, dated 1 April 2025

In so far as it relates to Condition 2, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that the appeal is against what he describes as the ‘de facto refusal’ of the application as originally submitted. However, this appears to relate to the advice received from officers, that the submitted plans in their original form were not considered acceptable. That advice was not a decision of the Council, and therefore cannot be appealed. Nor is it possible to make use of the procedure for appeals against a refusal of Permission in Principle (PiP), because in this case the application was not for PiP but for full planning permission.

However, the appellant has made it clear that what he is seeking in this regard is a permission based on the original plans, rather than the amended ones approved by the Council. Procedurally, the means of achieving such a change is through a variation of the relevant condition. I have therefore dealt with the present appeal on the basis that what is sought is a variation of Condition S1.

In addition, the appeal is also stated to be against Condition 2, which relates to the approved materials.

In the Council’s decision notice, Condition S1 states: “Except as may be modified by the conditions listed above, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the details described in the following drawings/documents: Elevations reference [name] dated 16 July 2025 Plan reference PROPOSED GARAGE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS dated 2 April 2025 Plan reference PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN dated 2 April 2025 Plan reference [name], ROOF AND LOFT PLAN dated 16 July 2025 Location plan reference EXISTING LOCATION AND SITE PLANS dated 2 April 2025 Reason: To determine the scope of this permission.”

The plans listed in Condition S1 therefore include some which were part of the original application, and two others which were submitted as amendments during the course of the application. These latter two are the revised elevations and the revised first floor, loft and roof plan. The appellant now seeks to substitute the original versions of these two plans, which on the copies provided to me are dated 1 April 2025.

In these original plans, the first floor of the proposed extension would extend slightly further forward, in line with the front of the existing building, instead of stepping back to make the extension appear as a separate element. In addition, the existing roof would be subsumed into a new steeply-pitched, mansard-style structure, with its flat-topped crown at the level of the existing ridge, rather than stepping down as in the approved plans.

The appellant’s preferred scheme, as proposed in the April 2025 plans, would be larger and less articulated than the approved version favoured by the Council. On this basis, I am inclined to agree that the approved scheme is the more visually attractive of the two. However, this alone does not mean that the alternative must be unacceptable.

To my mind, the scheme now proposed by the appellant has evidently been designed with some care and sensitivity. The front elevation achieves a pleasing sense of balance, in which the single roof becomes a unifying feature to offset the unavoidable lack of symmetry. The long, side elevation to the east is kept admirably simple, with just enough fenestration to punctuate the large expanse of wall. The use of different materials for the ground and first floors, as proposed, helps to break up the increased massing and maintain the building’s proportions. The design would also avoid the need for the awkward, box-shaped, windowless ‘dormer’ that is a disfiguring feature in the Council’s approved scheme. Overall therefore, it seems to me that the appellant’s proposed scheme would appear reasonably well composed.

The surrounding context mainly comprises well-spaced detached houses in a variety of different, individual designs, including some that have been substantially enlarged from their original form. In particular, No [address], which stands just across from the appeal property, on the opposite corner of [address], is of a similar size and style, and has a similar roof form, to that now proposed. In this context, the design proposed by the appellant would be generally in keeping with the surroundings.

In all these matters therefore, the appellant’s proposed scheme would contribute positively to the local townscape and street scene, as sought by Policy 10 of the [name], adopted in September 2014, and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the Land and Planning Policies, adopted in January 2020.

The proposed scheme would also provide more headroom within the new second-floor loft accommodation, ensuring that it could be used for habitable purposes. This reinforces my view that Condition S1 should be varied.

I therefore conclude that the appeal in respect of Condition S1 should succeed, and that the condition should be varied by substituting the April 2025 versions of the elevations, and the upper floor and roof plans, as sought by the appellant.

The new Condition S1A is set out within paragraph 1 above. In imposing this new condition, I have taken the opportunity to make various further minor changes. Firstly, I have deleted unnecessary wording. Secondly, I have corrected the dates of the approved ground floor and garage plans, to accord with the dates shown on the original drawings. And thirdly, I have included reference to the ‘proposed’ location and site plan, which seems more relevant than the ‘existing’ version previously referred to. Condition 2

Condition 2 states: “Unless the local planning authority has otherwise agreed in writing to the use of alternative materials, the walls and roof of the development hereby permitted shall be finished in the materials approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to first occupation of the development. Reason: To ensure that the development is of satisfactory appearance in accordance with Policy 10 of the ACS and Policies DE1 and DE2 of the LAPP.”

In summary, the condition requires the walls and roof of the development to be constructed using materials or finishes which have been approved by the authority, and for these to be completed prior to the development being occupied.

The appellant’s concern is that the condition could be held to mean that no part of the property may be occupied until those main external elements have been completed; and that this would mean the current occupants being required to vacate the house while the works were being carried out.

To my mind however, this concern is misplaced. The words “the development” in the last line of the condition are, in my view, very clearly a reference to the development which is the subject of the planning permission. In this case, that means the 2-storey side and rear extension, and the replacement garage, that are identified as the ‘Proposal’, at the head of the decision notice. The restriction on the timing of the occupation of the development therefore relates only to the new accommodation, not the property as a whole.

In the Council’s decision notice, Condition 2 appears under a heading ‘pre- Occupation Conditions’, and a note which states “The conditions in this section must be complied with before the development is occupied”. But this is not part of the condition itself, and in any event does not affect the condition’s meaning and proper interpretation, for the same reasons as explained above.

I agree that the wording of the condition is slightly contorted, but no alternative wording has been proposed. And in any event, in my view the meaning of the relevant words is sufficiently clear as they stand. In these circumstances, I find no grounds for Condition 2 to be either varied or removed. The appeal against this condition therefore fails.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in respect of Condition S1 only. The planning permission granted by the Council is therefore varied by the substitution of new Condition S1A, as set out above.