The site and background
This case concerned a dwelling in Buckinghamshire converted from a former agricultural building and located within the Metropolitan Green Belt.
When planning permission was granted for the conversion, and later for an extension to the residential curtilage, the council imposed a condition removing permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings. The stated reason was the need to protect the openness of the Green Belt. The effect of the condition was to prevent even minor domestic works without the need for a full planning application.
At the same time, the approved residential curtilage was tightly drawn around the building, resulting in a garden that was small and impractical for a family dwelling, despite the house sitting within a much larger plot.
The planning issue
National planning policy and guidance make clear that planning conditions should not be used to restrict permitted development rights unless there is clear and specific justification. The fact that a property is located within the Green Belt is not, on its own, sufficient reason to remove those rights.
In this case, the council accepted that the extended garden area was not excessive in size and that its shape and extent were reasonable. However, it nevertheless sought to impose a blanket restriction on future permitted development, without identifying any specific harm that would arise from the exercise of those rights. This raised a clear issue as to whether the condition met the tests of necessity and reasonableness.
The appeal process
We advised on and prepared an appeal against the condition, focusing on the correct legal approach to permitted development rights in the Green Belt.
The appeal submissions explained that permitted development rights apply to dwellings in the Green Belt in the same way as elsewhere, and that national policy does not support their routine removal. It was also demonstrated that the General Permitted Development Order already contains detailed limitations on the scale, siting and design of extensions and outbuildings, which are specifically intended to prevent disproportionate development.
In addition, it was shown that the extended curtilage was tightly drawn around the dwelling and would, in itself, constrain the scope of any future development. Any concern about hypothetical future works was therefore speculative and did not justify the imposition of a restrictive condition.
The outcome
The appeal was allowed and the disputed condition was deleted.
In reaching that conclusion, the inspector confirmed that there is nothing in national policy or guidance to suggest that permitted development rights should be withdrawn simply because a dwelling is located within the Green Belt. He found that the condition was not reasonable or necessary to maintain openness and that there was no clear justification for preventing the extended areas of garden from benefiting from permitted development rights.
As a result, the planning permission was varied to reinstate permitted development rights across the approved curtilage, allowing the property to function as a normal dwelling without the need for repeated planning applications for minor works .
Why this case is relevant
Conditions removing permitted development rights are often imposed too readily, particularly on rural sites and in the Green Belt. This case demonstrates that such conditions can be successfully challenged where they are not supported by clear evidence of harm, and that appeals remain an effective way of correcting overly restrictive decisions.
For a broader explanation of how planning conditions removing permitted development rights can be challenged or removed, see our article on reinstating permitted development rights.
