Appeal 6005203

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of five detached dwellings at [name] and Leisure, Aldermans Green Road in accordance with the application [name]/2025/0001243/RVC, without compliance with condition number 5 previously imposed on planning permission [name]/2008/0085 dated 27 March 2008 and subject to the conditions in the schedule below.

The application form and decision notice had different planning permission reference numbers and decision dates. The main parties have made comments on this matter, and I have used the correct reference number, reflecting the introduction of a new system to enable it to be compatible with the Council’s website, and decision date in the banner heading above and my formal decision.

Whilst the original planning permission related to the erection of 5 dwellings at ‘[name] and Leisure, Aldermans Green Road’, the appellant has confirmed that the basis for the planning application only related to [address], rather than all the properties in the development. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

I understand that the correct ownership certificates were served when the appeal was submitted. There is evidence before me that these were served on 9 February 2026, and details were contained on how to make representations on this appeal. On the basis that this matter has been rectified during the appeal stage and the application was publicised by the Council, it does not, in this case, warrant finding that the application and appeal are invalid.

The reason for refusal in the Decision Notice and the Council’s Officer Report includes reference to the potential impact on neighbouring amenities, which was not contained in the reason given for the condition on the original planning permission. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issue, which I set out below.

Planning permission1 was granted in 2008 for 5 detached dwellings. Disputed condition 5 removed national permitted development (PD) rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO), that would otherwise have allowed, within certain parameters, development including the enlargement of the houses, without the need for a planning application. This condition does not prevent such developments, but it allows the Council to control them through the planning application process.

The appellant seeks the variation of condition 5 to allow minor extensions and alterations to be built under PD rights, specifically rear extensions and dormers at No. 559. This is on the grounds that it is not reasonable or necessary, and the blanket removal of PD rights is unnecessarily restrictive given the site context and the specific nature of the proposed works.

Suggested wording for condition 5 has been submitted by the appellant that retains the removal for PD rights insofar as they relate to side extensions, structures forward of the principal elevation, hardstanding and means of enclosure.

Therefore, the main issue is whether the specific elements of the disputed condition are reasonable or necessary in the interests of preserving the openness of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of the area, and protecting the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is clear justification to do so2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) is also clear that conditions restricting the future use of PD rights may not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity and the scope of such conditions needs to be precisely defined3. There is no definition of clear justification and therefore is a matter of planning judgement for the decision-maker on the facts of the particular case.

The GPDO does not treat the Green Belt as one of the defined areas within which PD rights should not apply. As such, the Government’s fundamental Green Belt 1 Planning Decision Ref: R/2008/0085 2 National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 55 3 Planning Practice Guidance ‘Use of planning conditions’ Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-[phone] aims of preventing urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open do not extend to preventing PD within a domestic curtilage. Accordingly, there is no basis in national policy for an assumption that the exercise of PD rights would, in principle, be harmful to the Green Belt.

Therefore, in granting permission, the use of a condition to remove those rights would be justified only if there is a clear identifiable risk of harm to openness, having regard to the particular location and circumstances of the site.

With the exception of a large public house opposite the appeal site, land to the east and south is predominantly residential, with a number of houses having been subject to alterations, including extensions and dormer windows, as well as outbuildings within curtilages. [name]. 559 falls within the Green Belt, it reads as part, and reflects the character and appearance, of the surrounding built-up area.

I recognise that unrestricted PD rights could result in an increase in the amount of development at No. 559, which could be visible, and not all development constructed under PD rights is sympathetic to local character. However, I am not persuaded that such extensions, dormers and outbuildings to No. 559, in this particular location and its relation to nearby housing, would harm the openness of the Green Belt or the character and appearance of the area, and constitute a clear justification for removing relevant PD rights on the development. Moreover, concerns over circumventing a previous refusal of planning permission have not led me away from my conclusion on this matter.

Although some of the dwellings in the original permission are staggered, there is no compelling evidence before me on how such extensions, dormers, and outbuildings utilising PD rights at No. 559, might have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties that represents a clear justification to restrict such development.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the specific elements of the disputed condition are not reasonable or necessary in the interests of preserving the openness of the Green Belt, the character and appearance of the area, and protecting the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such, there would be no conflict with Policies DE1 and GB1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (December 2017) (the LP), which seek, amongst other things, to ensure a high quality design that positively contributes towards the local identity and character of an area, and to resist inappropriate in the Green Belt, in accordance with national planning policy.

The reason for refusal refers to LP Policy H5, which relates to managing the existing housing stock. I have found that it is not directly relevant to the main issue.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The PPG makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under Section 73 of the Act should also reinstate the conditions imposed on the earlier permission that continue to have effect.

The Council has provided a list of conditions that it considers would be appropriate and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. I have imposed all those conditions that I consider relevant and in accordance with the Framework and the PPG.

No time limit condition has been attached as the development is complete.

I have imposed conditions requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved materials, landscaping, site investigation, and [name] measures for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, protecting the health of occupiers and nature conservation.

I have reinstated the condition restricting permitted development rights in relation to the other dwellings that formed part of the original permission and not subject to this appeal, in the interest of certainty.

A condition retaining specific permitted development rights in relation to No. 559 is necessary in the interest of certainty and to reflect the scope of the appeal proposal. I have amended the wording from that proposed for clarity and to omit reference to structures under Class E forward of the principal elevation as this is already limited by paragraph E.1. (c) of the GPDO.

I have attached the car parking provision in the interests of highway safety.

A condition is necessary to control the provision of additional windows or openings in the northwest elevation of plot 4 in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out below.

The development shall be carried out only in full accordance with the approved materials detailed in approval R/2008/1012 dated 13/08/08 and thereafter retained as so.

The existing trees and shrubs indicated on the approved plans to be retained shall not be cut down, grubbed out, topped, lopped or uprooted without the written consent of the local planning authority. Any trees or shrubs removed without such consent or dying, or being severely damaged or diseased within five years from the substantial completion of development shall be replaced, as soon as practicable with trees and shrubs of such size and species details of which must be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

The development shall only be undertaken in accordance with details of both hard and soft landscaping works which have been approved via R/2008/0145 dated 29/06/2009. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the residential accommodation hereby permitted; and all planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation. Any tree or shrub which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications), no further development shall take place within the curtilage of any dwellinghouse hereby permitted, apart from the dwelling known as [site address] , other than the painting of the exterior of any building, without the written approval of the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name] (insofar as it relates to the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse extending beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse), D (insofar as it relates to a porch outside any external door forward of the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse), and F of Part 1, and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken at the dwelling known as [site address] .

None of the dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied until the car parking provision for that dwelling has been constructed or laid out and made available for use of the occupants of and visitors to that dwelling. The parking provision shall thereafter remain available for that use.

No windows or openings (apart from any shown on the approved drawings) shall be formed in the north west elevation of the house on plot 4 hereby approved without the written approval of the local planning authority and if any additional windows are subsequently approved they shall only be glazed or re-glazed in accordance with such approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved site investigation set out in approval R/2008/1012 dated 13/08/08.

The development shall only be carried out in full accordance with the [name] measures set out in approval R/2008/1012 dated 13/08/08. **END OF SCHEDULE**