My appeal has been dismissed; and I am trying to understand my next step.
So the inspectors concluded it was possible to build my fallback, that it was likely that I would build it, and that the fallback it was more harmful than the original application. Tick, tick, tick.
But my proposal hinged upon not doing the side extension (i.e. a larger rear extension instead of a PD rear & permitted side) with a planning condition used to secure this. The Inspector has rejected the use of a planning condition but implied that a 'binding obligation' could be suitable.
Does anyone have any experience/examples of a binding obligation used by an applicant?
Many thanks.
The main issues were:
Whether proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and harm the openness of the Green Belt [we all agree it would].
If inappropriate, whether harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development [this is the crux of the issue].
Other considerations
The appellants have provided detailed evidence concerning a fallback comprising a two storey rear extension, which benefits from a PD rear extension and a 2-storey side extension with gable to hip roof alteration and rear dormer, which has extant planning permission (‘permitted scheme’). Given the expressed need for additional family accommodation, and that a Building Notice has been submitted for those schemes, I consider that there is a reasonable likelihood that the fallback would be implemented were I to dismiss the appeal.
The PD extension would be similar in height to this scheme, taken in isolation its impact on the Green Belt would therefore be less harmful than this scheme. However, in combination with the permitted scheme it would result in substantial 2-storey extensions to the rear and side, which, would have a greater overall bulk than this proposal, and would be more harmful to the Green Belt.
The appellants state that, should the appeal be allowed, the permitted scheme would not be built. That, they suggest, could be controlled by an ‘either/or’ condition stating that the appeal scheme shall not be carried out in addition to the permitted scheme.
The implementation of an existing permission cannot be prevented by a condition attached to a subsequent permission. I have concerns that were I to impose an ‘either/or’ condition along the lines suggested, I am not persuaded that it would be effective in preventing the implementation of both this scheme and the permitted scheme. Consequently, notwithstanding the cited appeal decision, I consider that a binding obligation rather than an ‘either/or’ condition would be an appropriate mechanism to prevent the implementation of the permitted scheme.
Whether proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and harm the openness of the Green Belt [we all agree it would].
If inappropriate, whether harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development [this is the crux of the issue].
Other considerations
The appellants have provided detailed evidence concerning a fallback comprising a two storey rear extension, which benefits from a PD rear extension and a 2-storey side extension with gable to hip roof alteration and rear dormer, which has extant planning permission (‘permitted scheme’). Given the expressed need for additional family accommodation, and that a Building Notice has been submitted for those schemes, I consider that there is a reasonable likelihood that the fallback would be implemented were I to dismiss the appeal.
The PD extension would be similar in height to this scheme, taken in isolation its impact on the Green Belt would therefore be less harmful than this scheme. However, in combination with the permitted scheme it would result in substantial 2-storey extensions to the rear and side, which, would have a greater overall bulk than this proposal, and would be more harmful to the Green Belt.
The appellants state that, should the appeal be allowed, the permitted scheme would not be built. That, they suggest, could be controlled by an ‘either/or’ condition stating that the appeal scheme shall not be carried out in addition to the permitted scheme.
The implementation of an existing permission cannot be prevented by a condition attached to a subsequent permission. I have concerns that were I to impose an ‘either/or’ condition along the lines suggested, I am not persuaded that it would be effective in preventing the implementation of both this scheme and the permitted scheme. Consequently, notwithstanding the cited appeal decision, I consider that a binding obligation rather than an ‘either/or’ condition would be an appropriate mechanism to prevent the implementation of the permitted scheme.
So the inspectors concluded it was possible to build my fallback, that it was likely that I would build it, and that the fallback it was more harmful than the original application. Tick, tick, tick.
But my proposal hinged upon not doing the side extension (i.e. a larger rear extension instead of a PD rear & permitted side) with a planning condition used to secure this. The Inspector has rejected the use of a planning condition but implied that a 'binding obligation' could be suitable.
Does anyone have any experience/examples of a binding obligation used by an applicant?
Many thanks.
