Condition restricting permitted development rights in Green Belt removed at appeal – Royal Oak Delph
Planning permission was granted to convert the Royal Oak Public House into a dwellinghouse with garden curtilage. In granting planning permission the Council imposed a planning condition that removed all permitted development rights for the newly formed dwellinghouse.
The Council’s objections were based on the impact of permitted development extensions on the openness of the Green Belt and the potential impact on the setting of the neighbouring Heights Chapel, a Grade II Listed Building.
The property is located in a remote location and the applicant was intending to build a detached garage under permitted development for the parking of his vehicles and other equipment associated with the property. He was mindful that being in the Green Belt it would raise issues if he was to apply for planning permission for a detached garage as it would not generally meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 and 150 of the Framework. His only option was to lodge a planning appeal seeking the removal of the condition.
The Council was concerned that the removal of the condition could result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Planning Inspector disagreed and considered the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) does not seek to limit such rights for properties in the Green Belt. Paragraph 54 of the Framework sets out that national permitted development rights can be restricted using planning conditions but on the provision that there is a clear justification for doing so. He came to the conclusion that the planning permission would result in the change of use from a business use to a dwellinghouse which would then benefit from permitted development rights, but this in itself is not a justification for removing such rights.
The Inspector was also concerned that the Council failed to explain why extensions, buildings or alterations would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.
In respect of the neighbouring heritage asset the Council stated that permitted development rights would enable a considerably sized outbuilding to be erected, and that there is a need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed asset’s architectural or historic interest or setting. The GPDO does allow, under Class E, the erection of buildings within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse that are incidental to the enjoyment of it. Such a building would be subject to certain limits and conditions and key amongst these are height restrictions and a limit that such a building within the curtilage. The Inspector concluded that given the height and prominence of the nearby listed building and the two-storey form of the appeal property, such a building, erected under Class E of the GPDO would not detract from the significance of either the listed building or the non-designated heritage asset.
The Inspector concluded that the condition would not meet the tests of being reasonable or necessary and as such the appeal was successful.
Many Councils impose planning conditions that remove permitted development rights on developments within the Green Belt as a matter of course without taking into account paragraph 54 of the Framework which clearly states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. If such a planning condition is imposed seek advice to see whether there are grounds to appeal against such a planning condition.
The Council’s objections were based on the impact of permitted development extensions on the openness of the Green Belt and the potential impact on the setting of the neighbouring Heights Chapel, a Grade II Listed Building.
The property is located in a remote location and the applicant was intending to build a detached garage under permitted development for the parking of his vehicles and other equipment associated with the property. He was mindful that being in the Green Belt it would raise issues if he was to apply for planning permission for a detached garage as it would not generally meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 and 150 of the Framework. His only option was to lodge a planning appeal seeking the removal of the condition.
The Council was concerned that the removal of the condition could result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Planning Inspector disagreed and considered the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) does not seek to limit such rights for properties in the Green Belt. Paragraph 54 of the Framework sets out that national permitted development rights can be restricted using planning conditions but on the provision that there is a clear justification for doing so. He came to the conclusion that the planning permission would result in the change of use from a business use to a dwellinghouse which would then benefit from permitted development rights, but this in itself is not a justification for removing such rights.
The Inspector was also concerned that the Council failed to explain why extensions, buildings or alterations would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt.
In respect of the neighbouring heritage asset the Council stated that permitted development rights would enable a considerably sized outbuilding to be erected, and that there is a need to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed asset’s architectural or historic interest or setting. The GPDO does allow, under Class E, the erection of buildings within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse that are incidental to the enjoyment of it. Such a building would be subject to certain limits and conditions and key amongst these are height restrictions and a limit that such a building within the curtilage. The Inspector concluded that given the height and prominence of the nearby listed building and the two-storey form of the appeal property, such a building, erected under Class E of the GPDO would not detract from the significance of either the listed building or the non-designated heritage asset.
The Inspector concluded that the condition would not meet the tests of being reasonable or necessary and as such the appeal was successful.
Many Councils impose planning conditions that remove permitted development rights on developments within the Green Belt as a matter of course without taking into account paragraph 54 of the Framework which clearly states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national PD rights unless there is a clear justification to do so. If such a planning condition is imposed seek advice to see whether there are grounds to appeal against such a planning condition.
